State v. Neal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The trial does not embrace every procedural and administrative step and judicial examination of every issue of fact and law during the trial, and accused's presence is not necessary during proceedings which are no part of the trial, such as preliminary or formal proceedings or motions which do not affect his guilt or innocence. . . . "It has been held that accused's presence is not necessary at the hearing and determination *Page 672 of a demurrer to the indictment or information, of a motion to quash the same, of a plea in abatement, or of a motion for leave to file an information, or to summon witnesses, or to amend the information . . . or of other motions. . . . ". . . Thus, the exclusion of accused during conferences of court and counsel on questions of law, at the bench or in chambers, has been considered not to constitute a denial of the right of accused to be present at every stage of the trial. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 So. 2d 663 - Johnson v. State

2. ““The false pretenses need not be the sole, nor even the paramount, cause of the delivery [of the money or goods.] ‘It is sufficient if they are a part of the moving cause, and without them the prosecutor would not have parted with his property.’ ” State v. Wren, 333 Mo. 575, 578 (1), 62 S.W.2d 853, 854, 855 (1, 2). As necessarily implied by the last sentence of the above quotation, the person from whom the money was obtained must have relied at least in part on the false representations. See also, State v. Young, 266 Mo. 723, 732 , 183 S.W. 305, 307 ; State v. Eudaly, Mo.Sup., Div. 2, 188 S.W. 110 , 113(8). But if reasonably calculated to deceive it is not necessary to show that the defrauded party investigated the representations to ascertain their truth or falsity, unless he had the means at hand. State v. Keyes, 196 Mo. 136, 151 , 93 S.W. 801, 805 , 6 L.R.A., N.S. 369.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Kansas City v. Fritz

3. ““[W]here the defendant has waived a preliminary hearing, he cannot complain of defects in the complaint. In this case the record shows appellant Neal and defendant Hines (before the severance) both waived formal arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty in the circuit court. This waived the preliminary hearing and therefore the alleged defects in the complaint.””

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