State v. Finnegan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The remaining assignment of error in two divisions raises a single issue — the use of a county attorney’s information. Defendant argues he is constitutionally entitled to be charged and tried on indictment. He says prosecution by information violates his right to due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the federal constitution. This same complaint in various forms has been considered and rejected many times, both by this court and by others. See § 769.1, The Code; Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 545 , 82 S.Ct. 955, 957-958 , 8 L.Ed.2d 98, 104 (1962); Wessling v. Bennett, 410 F.2d 205, 207 (8th Cir. 1969); State v. Masters, 196 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Iowa 1972); State v. Abodeely, 179 N.W.2d 347, 355 (Iowa 1970). Cf. State v. Lass, 228 N.W.2d 758, 762, 763 (Iowa 1975).””

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

2. “Later, in State v. Finnegan, 237 N.W.2d 459, 460 (Iowa 1976), it was noted that “ * * * no particular model or form is required in advising the jury concerning the meaning of reasonable doubt as long as a suitable standard is given. “In the present case, the trial court afforded the jury such a guideline, although not in the precise language requested by defendant. * *”

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