Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 32 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 law-of-the-case doctrine does dictate that a decision made in a prior appeal may not be revisited in a subsequent appeal. Mode v. State, 234 Ark. 46 , 350 S.W.2d 675 (1961). We have long held that a decision in a prior appeal becomes the law of the case. Bowman v. State, 93 Ark. 168 , 129 S.W. 80 (1909). This is true even if the decision was wrongly decided. Rankin v. Schofield, 81 Ark. 440 , 98 S.W. 674 (1905). The conclusion of the court in one opinion becomes the law of the case on subsequent proceedings on the same cause and the matter is res judicata. Perry v. Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Cp., 44 Ark. 383, 395 (1884). The doctrine requires that matters decided in the first appeal be considered concluded. The doctrine is not inflexible and does not absolutely preclude correction of error, but it prevents an issue already decided from being raised in a subsequent appeal unless the evidence materially varies between the two appeals. Carmargo v. State, 337 Ark. 105 , 987 S.W.2d 680 (1999). Courts developed the doctrine to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single continuing lawsuit. Fairchild v. Norris, 317 Ark.166, 876 S.W.2d 588 (1994). The doctrine requires that matters decided in a prior appeal be considered concluded. Camargo v. State, 337 Ark. 105 , 987 S.W.2d 680 (1999); Davis v. State, 325 Ark. 96 , 925 S.W.2d 768 (1996); Mauppin v. State, 314 Ark. 566 , 865 S.W.2d 270 (1993). While a decision of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

2. “Therefore, this court’s holding did not turn on the trial court’s comment but upon failure to preserve. The court’s decision would have been the same in the absence of the statement characterizing the trial judge’s comments. The opinion did not reach the issue of the trial court’s comment and hence was not actually decided. No adjudication took place that would bind this court now. Consequently, we hold that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply to this appeal.”

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