State v. Strobel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Other testimony on behalf of the defendant which is urged in appellant’s brief as warranting a reversal of the judgment created sharp conflicts in the evidence, all of which were by the verdict resolved against the defendant. ‘Disputed questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses will not be considered on appeal. Determination of such matters is within the province of the jury, and so long as there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, it cannot be disturbed on appeal’. State v. Messerly, 126 Mont. 62, 69 , 244 Pac. (2d) 1054, 1057 . See also, State v. Robinson, 109 Mont. 322 , 96 Pac. (2d) 265 ; State v. Harkins, 85 Mont. 585 , 281 Pac. 551 , and cases therein cited.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ahl · State v. Alexander

2. ““The jury evidently rejected the testimony of the defendant and accepted the evidence offered by the state. This it had a right to do. State v. Willette, 46 Mont. 326 , 127 Pac. 1013 ; State v. Grimsley, 96 Mont. 327 , 30 Pac. (2d) 85 ; State v. Semmens, 105 Mont. 113 , 71 Pac. (2d) 913 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Alexander · Little v. Strobel

3. “However, the above rule was not made known to the jury in the case at bar. The customary charge directing the jury to consider the instruction as a whole and not to single out any certain instruction and ignore the others, was not offered or given. The absence of this instruction might well have misled the jury to single out some one instruction, such as Instruction No. 7 [being the one held to have been erroneously given] and to decide the case upon it alone. Under these circumstances, the giving of Instruction No. 7 was especially prejudicial to the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Little v. Strobel