State v. Aeby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As we have seen, the point here attempted to be raised relates to the admission or exclusion of evidence which is a trial error and may be reviewed only when the appeal is from the order overruling the motion for a new trial and such rule is specified as error in conformity with Rule No. 5 of this court, and the fact that a claimed federal right is presented does not preclude this court from refusing to decide the federal question and apply adequate and independent well-settled state rules relating to appellate procedure. In John v. Paullin, 231 U. S. 583 , 58 L. Ed. 381 , 34 S. Ct. 178 , it was said: “‘Without any doubt it rests with each State to prescribe the jurisdiction of its appellate courts, the mode and time of invoking that jurisdiction, and the rules of practice to be applied in its exercise; and that state law and practice in this regard are no less applicable when Federal rights are in controversy than when the case turns entirely upon questions of local or general law. . . .’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Marsh · State v. Carpenter

2. ““In In re Lamkin, 355 U. S. 59 , 2 L. Ed. 107 , 78 S. Ct. 137 , a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied upon the ground that the judgment of the court of criminal appeals of Texas rested upon an adequate state ground since the petitioner in filing his application for habeas corpus in the state court failed to comply with applicable state procedures. See, also, Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207 , 80 L. Ed. 158 , 56 S. Ct. 183 , holding that where the judgment of a state court rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other nonfederal in character, the Supreme Court of the United States is without jurisdiction to review if the nonfederal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment. In the opinion it was said: “ . . This rule has become firmly fixed at least as early as Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263 ( 20 L. Ed. 635, 637 ), and has been reiterated in a long line of cases since that time. It is enough to cite, in addition to the Klinger case, the following: Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 163-165 ( 61 L. Ed. 644, 648, 649 , 37 S. Ct. 318 ); Petrie v. Nampa Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 154, 157 , ( 63 L. Ed. 178, 179 , 39 S. Ct. 25 ); McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302 ( 72 L. Ed. 891 , 48 S. Ct. 519 ); Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361 ( 37 L. Ed. 1111 , 14 S. Ct. 131 ).’ (1. c. 210.) “In Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375 , 99 L. Ed. 1161 , 75 S. Ct. 814 , it was said: “ ‘A state proced”

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

3. “"It is quite true that under G. S. 1949, 62-1701, an appeal to this court may be taken by a defendant as a matter of right from any judgment against him. The statute, however, does not mean that a defendant is entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without compliance with well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review. In other words, while in this case defendant did appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, his failure to specify that order as error precludes a review of alleged irregularities and errors occurring during the trial.” (p. 103.)”

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