State v. Bruno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The county attorney * * * shall not be permitted to introduce any witness * * * unless he shall have given to the defendant, or his attorney of record if the defendant be not found within the county, a notice in writing stating the name, place of residence, and occupation of such witness, and the substance of what he expects to prove by him on the trial, at least four days before the commencement of such trial." (emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sevcik · State v. SEVICK

2. “[although the doctrine of entrapment may be asserted even though defendant pleads not guilty, ordinarily the defense is not available where defendant denies commission of the very acts upon which the prosecution is predicated. Such a denial is inconsistent with the defense, which assumes the offense charged was committed but permits accused to seek relief from guilt on the ground that criminal intent or design was not his, but rather that of employees or agents of the government who planted the idea in his otherwise innocent mind by suggestion or solicitation.”

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

3. ““This appropriate language appears in State v. Carey, 165 N.W.2d 27, 29 (Iowa 1969): ‘ * * * We have consistently held misconduct with respect to the jury, whether it be by litigant, counsel or officer of the court, will not be grounds for a new trial unless prejudice is shown, * * * [citing authorities]. ‘We are, however, confronted with another equally well-established rule in considering this error — that the jury is to be above suspicion and that any practice which brings its proceedings under suspicion is to be prohibited.’ ””

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