State v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Covarrubias, 244 Neb. at 374 , 507 N.W.2d at 253, we explained our earlier holding in State v. LaFreniere, 240 Neb. 258 , 481 N.W.2d 412 (1992): ` LaFreniere holds that in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, any fact or circumstance reasonably susceptible of two interpretations must be resolved most favorably to the accused. LaFreniere requires a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence to be taken most favorably to the accused when circumstantial evidence is the only basis upon which to support a conviction and the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and the other of nonguilt, and neither inference is stronger than the other. See, also, State v. Ruiz, 241 Neb. 693 , 489 N.W.2d 865 (1992); State v. Dawson, 240 Neb. 89 , 480 N.W.2d 700 (1992).'" State v. Pierce, 3 Neb.App. at 447-48 , 527 N.W.2d at 877 .”

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

2. “1. Failure of the Court to sustain defendant's Motions for directed verdict at the close of the evidence. 2. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a finding of guilt. 3. The State failed to prove all the essential elements of the crime charged. 4. The Trial Court erred in admitting, over defense objection, Exhibits numbered 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. 5. Failing to grant Appellant's Motion for New Trial. 6. The sentences imposed by the Court are excessive and an abuse of discretion.”

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

3. “"[T]he appellate court must first independently decide as a matter of law whether the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations and whether the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt. Regarding a question of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the trial court in a judgment under review."”

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