Patten v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Article I, section 6 of our Constitution does not guarantee the right to a jury trial in every case.... This right has been interpreted to be a trial by jury as it existed at common law, or more specifically, “the common law under the laws and constitution of North Carolina at the time of the adoption of the Ten nessee Constitution of 1796.” For rights and remedies created after the formation of our Constitution, the legislature is free to enact procedures that do not include jury trials.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Tipton v. City of Knoxville · Helms v. Tennessee Department of Safety

2. ““(7, 8) When the trial court sustained the petition for habeas corpus in the first of these cases the man was then turned loose and when there was a subsequent indictment and conviction he cannot assert the defense of this former conviction. We have many decisions that agree under both Federal and State Constitutions when the accused, himself procures a judgment to be set aside upon his own initiative and he voluntarily accepts the result, then he cannot by his own act avoid the jeopardy in which he stands and then assert it as a bar to a subsequent jeopardy. Davis v. State, 199 Tenn. 51 , 282 S.W.2d 357 , and cases there cited. In the Davis case we said this: * * a defendant, who, upon his own motion, extricates himself from jeopardy will not be permitted to take advantage in a subsequent trial of the court’s action in the removal of the jeopardy from him.’ Many authorities are there cited, including Etter v. State, supra ( 185 Tenn. 218 , 205 S.W.2d 1 ), and others. This line of reasoning has been followed by the Supreme Court of the United States so far as we know, or can find, down through the history of their cases, such as Murphy v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155 , 20 S.Ct. 639 , 44 L.Ed. 711 ; Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 , and many others. “Thus it is, as we see it, regardless of what the basis was in setting aside these first judgments on the petition for habeas corpus what we said in Etter v. State, supra, is equa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patten v. State