Cada v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The defendant (2) a. intentionally [or] b. knowingly (3) a. harms [or] b. threatens to harm (4) another person (5) by an unlawful act (б) a. in retaliation for [or] b. on account of (7) a. the service of another [or] b. the status of another (8) as a a. public servant ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. in the Matter of J.S.R., a Child · David Nandin v. State

2. “In Gollihar , the indictment for theft of a go-cart stated that the go-cart was "Model 136202,” but the State’s evidence showed that its model was 136203. That variance was immaterial because the State did not have to plead any model or serial number to describe the property stolen and there was no suggestion that the defendant was surprised or harmed by the evidence offered at trial. The model number was not an element of the offense, and the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the theft charge did not depend upon the specific model of the go-cart. Further, there was no suggestion that the defendant possessed numerous go-carts with different model numbers, or that he was misled about which specific go-cart the State would prove he stole.”

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

3. “To determine what “the essential elements of the crime” are, we look to “the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” A hypothetically correct jury charge “would be one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.””

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