Randolph v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 69 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Generally speaking, questions calling for the conclusion of a witness are objectionable, Albright v. Hughes (1940), 107 Ind. App. 651, 661 , 26 N.E.2d 576 , however, it does not necessarily follow that it is reversible error to permit a witness to answer such questions. A lay witness may express an opinion on numerous subjects if based upon his personal knowledge and the proper factual basis for the opinion has been laid. See: Buuck v. Krucke-berg (1951), 121 Ind. App. 262 , 95 N.E.2d 304 , 22 A.L.R.2d 1145 ; 7 Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., § 1924, p. 22.””

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

2. ““Neither this constitutional provision nor the implementing statute is self-executing. While it is true that there is no burden upon the defendant to request a speedy trial, nevertheless, if the terms of court specified in the statute go by and he is, through no fault of his own, not brought to trial, the burden of invoking the statute then falls upon him and his rights thereunder can be asserted only through some affirmative action on his part.” Randolph v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 57, at 64 , 122 N. E. 2d 860 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Brooks