State v. Solomon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * The picture was tendered in connection with the testimony of Dr. Wallace Clark after it had been identified by him as that of the person upon whom he performed the autopsy. And, when it was offered, defense counsel did not at first object on the ground that it was gruesome. On the contrary, he claimed that it was inadmissible because the identification of Dr. Clark was incomplete as the state had not proved “ * * * who had the body from the time it left the barge until it showed up in the morgue.” But, aside from this, the photograph was clearly admissible for identification purposes - and also in corroboration of the Coroner’s procés verbal with reference to the description of the wounds and the cause of death. Albeit, we reiterate our adherence to the views succinctly expressed in State v. Johnson, 198 La. 195 , 3 So.2d 556 , that, where the photographs are admissible, the fact that they are so gruesome that they' tend to prejudice the jury is not a valid reason for rejecting them in evidence. * * * [Emphasis added.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 Utah 2d 113 - State v. Poe · 21 Utah 2d 205 - State v. Renzo