196 So. 2d 878 - Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, this Court must accept as having been established all that was proved by the evidence, as well as all that such evidence reasonably tended to prove, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, favorable to the theory of the prosecution. ( 196 So.2d at 883 ).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State · 387 So. 2d 101 - Gray v. State

2. “"In the case now before this Court, it is conceded by appellant that it was he who introduced the subject of the beating administered to his father by Drewery some ten years previously, and that this remark brought on the fatal quarrel. There is also testimony that immediately following the homicide, appellant stated that he had promised his father that he would `get' Drewery for that old affront and injury and that in killing Drewery he had done it. It is also clearly in evidence that Drewery's response to appellant was that he thought that the old incident was over and forgotten, and it was appellant who replied then that he hadn't forgotten it. Under the circumstances in evidence, the jury was warranted in finding, and apparently did find, that the bitter memory of this old quarrel, when Drewery had beaten his father, years ago, had continued to smoulder in the mind of appellant for the ten years intervening and that this threat, uttered against Drewery and testified to by Robertson, was an expression of his long entertained animosity toward Drewery and of his intention eventually to `settle the score' and to `get' him for it. These facts distinguish this case from Macmasters (McMasters) [ v. State, 81 Miss. 374 , 33 So. 2 ], supra, and Myers [ v. State, 167 Miss. 76 , 147 So. 308 ], supra. A threat may be too remote in the absence of proof of a connection between the threat and the underlying cause of the fatal quarrel. Here, by appellant's own admission, he had not forgo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parr v. State