State v. Osburn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'the only proper verdicts to be submitted . . . are”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McClanahan · State v. Robinson

2. ““When the procuring agent theory has been properly raised by the evidence and a request for an instruction has been made by the accused a jury should be instructed that should the jury find the defendant merely acted as a procuring agent for the purchaser and not for or as the seller of the drugs the jury should find the defendant not guilty of selling the drugs.” (Syl. ¶[ 3.)”

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

3. ““Stipulation of facts “(Filed April 20, 1973) “It is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto that the following set forth facts are agreed and stipulated to as being the evidence that would be produced by the State of Kansas, plaintiff at the time of the trial herein. “The State’s evidence would show thát on the evening of December 24, 1970, Richard Jones, a reserve policeman for the Topeka Police Department, working part-time as an undercover agent for the Topeka Police Department Vice Squad, together with an informant, a Dan Biddle, were sent by the Topeka Police Department Vice Squad to 1526 Harrison, Topeka, Kansas, for the purpose of making a heroin buy. They were referred by a Mr. Frank Fitzgibbons to a place where they were advised they might be able to obtain some. They were directed to 1222 Long Street, Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, where upon arriving at that address, they were met by the defendant, Carl Dean Osburn, in his front yard. At that time there was some conversation between the defendant and the two police agents about obtaining some heroin, at which time they were advised by the defendant that he did not have any heroin available but that he would agree to purchase some for them. Mr. Osbum was then given $24.00, $20.00 of which to purchase heroin for Mr. Biddle and Mr. Jones, and $4.00 of which to be used for the purchase of heroin for the defendant. Mr. Osbum then left and returned approximately one-half hour later and gave Mr. Biddle and Mr. J”

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