State v. Cantieny’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The declaration thus presented was in a writing which was made by one Carrigan, in the presence of Laughlin and of one Kennedy. The facts of the ease were drawn out from Laughlin by Carrigan, who then put the same in the writing. Some facts were suggested by Kennedy, to which Laughlin assented. The writing was then read to Laughlin, who assented to its correctness by a signature, and by responding, ‘Yes/ in answer to a question as to whether he swore to it. The manner in which the instrument was made was not such as to render it inadmissible as the declaration of the deceased. Wharton, Crim. Ev. sec. 300; Com. v. Casey, supra [11 Cush. (Mass.) 417, 59 Am. Dec. 150 ] ; Murphy v. People, supra [ 37 Ill. 447 ] ; People v. Sanchez, supra [ 24 Cal. 17 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Okla. Crim. 124 - Updike v. State

2. ““The facts and circumstances to which we have referred seem to us to have been sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the court that the declaration was made under a conviction of impending ■death, and without hope of recovery. It was therefore properly allowed to go to the jury.””

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