James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Counsel did not include as adverse rulings the court’s response to two objections made by the State during cross-examination of [a witness]. The objections are included in the abstract and could arguably be construed as adverse. We do not order rebriefing, however, because the circumstances here are unlike those in Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16 , 362 S.W.3d 877 (per curiam). Here, the abstract and the broader scope of our required [4 — 3(i) ] review of the record are sufficient to confirm that the rulings were not prejudicial, even if adverse.”

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