353 So. 2d 67 - Eddy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If the first and fourth parts of the argument referred to the initial theft from the Woolco parking lot, it would also be admissible due to the facts and issues of this case. As noted above, permissible argument depends on the issues of the case. Here, knowledge by the appellant that the goods were stolen was in issue. Of course, a thief would know goods he stole were stolen. Here, there were facts from which it could be inferred that appellant was in possession of a recently stolen vehicle. From this possession, the inference he stole the truck could be drawn. Kilpatrick v. State , 43 Ala. App. 667 , 199 So.2d 682 . The arguments in parts one and four, if considered to mean appellant initially stole the truck from the Woolco parking lot, were proper. Sears v. State , 106 Tex.Crim. 219 , 291 S.W. 547 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 534 So. 2d 378 - Schartau v. State · 417 So. 2d 620 - Milton v. State

2. “The purpose of the allegations in both indictments is to inform the accused of whose property was stolen and to prevent double jeopardy by identifying the particular transaction. Thus there should be no distinction between such cases as to the requirements for proof of ownership.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 624 So. 2d 678 - Rheaume v. State