State v. S.S.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[p]ermitting appellate courts to substitute their factual findings for equally plausible trial court findings is likely to 'undermine the legitimacy of the [trial] courts in the eyes of litigants, multiply appeals by encouraging appellate retrial of some factual issues, and needlessly reallocate judicial authority.' " Id. at 380-81 , 162 A.3d 1058 (second alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) advisory committee's note to 1985 amendment). An appellate court owes no deference, however, to "conclusions of law made by lower courts in suppression decisions,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. A.M. · State v. Rasul McNeil-Thomas (080758) (Essex County and Statewide)

2. “[W]e uphold the facts found by the ... judge to the extent they are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record ....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wint · State v. A.M.

3. “[A] standard of deference to * a trial court's fact findings, even fact findings based solely on video or documentary evidence, best advances the interests of justice in a judicial system that assigns different roles to trial courts and appellate courts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Rasul McNeil-Thomas (080758) (Essex County and Statewide) · State v. S.N.