Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(5) The only other contention is that the trial court should have granted a new trial on account of an alleged variance between the owner of the building entered as averred in the indictment and the proof. The ownership of the building was averred in the indictment to be in ‘Clifton’s Inc.’ The evidence shows that the building belonged to an individual but that it was occupied by Clifton’s Inc., under a lease contract. “It is well settled that burglary or house-breaking is not an offense against the ownership and legal title, and that ownership of the building alleged to have been burglarized not only may but should be laid in the actual occupant. 9 C.J., Burglary, 80, pp. 1044, 1045; 12 C.J.S., Burglary, 38.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anderson v. State · Campbell v. State

2. “It is a sacred principle of our law that no man shall be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Therefore, where a man has been pronounced not guilty on a valid indictment, he cannot be again indicted upon a charge of having committed the same supposed crime. But, while we guard with great care this rule of defense, so consonant with justice and reason, we must at the same time with equal care see that it is not perverted from its intended purposes and made to protect from punishment those whom the law never designed should fall within its operation. To entitle a prisoner to the benefit of the plea of autrefois acquit, it is necessary that the crimes charged in the last bill of indictment be precisely the same with that charged in the first, and that the first bill of indictment is good in point of law. The true test by which the question whether such a plea is a sufficient bar may be tried is whether the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient to procure a legal, conviction upon the first”

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

3. ““In Chapple v. State, 124 Tenn. 105 , 135 S.W. 321 , indictment averred ownership of the property stolen in an individual. There was some evidence that it was the property of the corporation in which the individual in question was a stockholder. The trial judge declined to give a special request to the jury to the effect that if the property was in fact that of the corporation and not of the individual, they should acquit even though the individual might own stock in such corporation. This court reversed the judgment of the trial judge for failure to give the special request.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 191 - Parton v. State