French v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the evidence was not direct and absolutely certain, but rather circumstantial, it was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and support the verdict. As Farmer was the sole owner and driver of the ear in which they were riding it is insisted by appellants that he alone could be guilty of possessing the liquor if it were possessed by either. We cannot, however, give our assent to this narrow construction in view of the state of the record. If, as the jury may have believed, appellants jointly owned and possessed the liquor and took it with them in the car for the purpose of drinking or otherwise using for their joint benefit, they were all guilty of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor. In the absence of a definite showing that one or the other of the appellants had possession and control over the liquor to the exclusion of the others — -this was a matter of defense — and thus individually possessing it, the jury was justified under the evidence in finding all of the defendants guilty.” (p. 513.)”

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

2. ““No witness before a grand jury, court of inquiry, or on a trial for any violation of this act, shall be permitted to refuse to answer any question because the answer will incriminate himself, but his evidence shall not be used against him in any subsequent proceedings, and such witness shall not be prosecuted for any offense disclosed in such testimony. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunn v. Commonwealth