State v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]nsofar as the possibility of harmless-error review is concerned, the jury-instruction error in this case is quite different from the jury-instruction error of erecting a presumption regarding an element of the offense. A mandatory presumption ... violates the Fourteenth Amendment, because it may relieve the State of its burden of proving all elements of the offense. [Citations omitted.] But "[w]hen a jury is instructed to presume malice from predicate facts, it still must find the existence of those facts beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation omitted.] And when the latter facts "are so closely related to the ultimate fact to be presumed that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding that ultimate fact, making those findings is functionally equivalent to finding the element required to be presumed." [Citations omitted.] A reviewing court may thus be able to conclude that the presumption played no significant role in the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. White

2. “An appellate court is compelled to accept jurisdiction when the sentence entered by the trial court is invalid due to plain error in the proceedings. State v. Williams, 247 Neb. 931 , 531 N.W.2d 222 (1995). Moreover, the defendant’s conviction was constitutionally infirm and, therefore, void ab initio. See, State v. Rolling, 218 Neb. 51 , 352 N.W.2d 175 (1984); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203 , 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975). A void sentence is no sentence. State v. Wren, 234 Neb. 291 , 450 N.W.2d 684 (1990). It has been longstanding law in Nebraska that a void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding. See State v. Ewert, supra. Thus, to use a procedural default or waiver as a means of ignoring a plain error that results in an unconstitutional incarceration would place form over substance; would damage the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process; and would render the plain error doctrine and postconviction relief remedies meaningless. State v. Plant, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Neb. Ct. App. 776 - State v. Johnson

3. “constitutionally invalid, and postconviction relief is proper to rectify a constitutionally invalid conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 17 Neb. Ct. App. 1 - State v. Davenport