State v. Gobin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Every person who shall wilfully and corrupty (sic) swear, testify, or affirm falsely to any material matter under any oath, affirmation, or declaration legally administered in any matter, cause, or proceeding pending in any court of law or equity, or before any officer thereof, or in any case where an oath or affirmation is required by law or is necessary for the prosecution or defense of any private right or for the ends of public justice, or in any matter or proceeding before any tribunal or officer created by the Constituition or by law, or where any oath may be lawfully required by any judicial, executive, or administrative officer, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall not thereafter be received as a witness to be sworn in any matter or cause whatever, until the judgment against him be reversed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 197 So. 2d 469 - Hamilton v. State

2. ““. . . The title to the act of 1921 is drawn according to a form in very common use by the legislature, and if such form of title did not satisfy the requirement of section 16 of article 2 a very considerable part of all the legislation of this state would have to be held invalid. Another angle to this discussion is that the statute of 1921 was incorporated in the general revision of 1923, and now appears therein as R. S. 12-824. Therefore, in common with all other statutes included in that revision, it became immune to any attack based upon mere insufficiency of title, irregularity in previous legislative history, and such like formal defects. . . .” (p. 768.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bond v. Board of County Commissioners

3. ““ ‘A statement of accused, directly contradicting that upon which the perjury is assigned, is not sufficient evidence of the falsity of the latter, but other additional extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish its falsity. “ ‘It was formerly held that a conviction for perjury could not be had except upon the direct testimony of two witnesses. “ ‘The early rule has been repudiated, and now a charge of perjury may be sustained, either by the testimony of two witnesses or by that of one witness and corroborating circumstances.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Phillips