133 So. 2d 581 - State v. McInnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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. “[T]he appellee in this case would not have the right to maintain a separate and distinct appeal from the order denying his motion to quash the information. This is for the reason that appeals from interlocutory orders entered in criminal cases may not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal unless specifically authorized by statute or rule of the Supreme Court. He does, however, have the right to maintain his cross-appeal in this case since it relates to the same order from which the State's appeal is taken.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 Wis. 2d 599 - State v. Beals · 444 So. 2d 434 - State v. Williams

2. “cross-assignments of error are allowable only when they could have supported a separate and distinct appeal, unless they relate to the same judgment from which the main appeal is taken.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 444 So. 2d 434 - State v. Williams

3. “nothing in the rules which specifically prohibits a defendant from taking a cross-appeal in those instances where the main appeal has been taken by the State ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 559 So. 2d 601 - State v. McAdams