378 So. 2d 239 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" . . . [B]ut collateral estoppel is not applicable unless some material issue in the second case between the same parties, or their privies, as to another cause of action, was actually decided, expressly or by necessary implication in the first case. Stone v. William Steinen Manufacturing Co. , 7 N.J. Super. 321 , 70 A.2d 803 , 807 (1949); In re Williams Estate , 36 Cal.2d 289 , 223 P.2d 248 , 22 A.L.R.2d 1116 (1950)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 521 So. 2d 1373 - Hall v. State · 500 So. 2d 81 - Joiner v. State

2. “"We cannot say from the record before us that the only 'rationally conceivable issue in dispute before the jury' in the case in which defendant was acquitted was whether defendant 'had been one of the robbers.' Furthermore, it seems to us that the record is not 'utterly devoid of any indication that the first jury could rationally have found' that Patricia Miller 'had not been a victim' of a robbery, and in such respects this case differs materially from Ashe v. Swenson. "Although the evidence in the first case may have been materially different from the evidence in the second case, there is strong indication in the only evidence before us that the State's case against defendant in the first case did not fail by reason of insufficiency of proof as to defendant's presence and participation in the robbery, but on the ground that there was no robbery of the alleged victim in that case. What happened to the four cents the alleged victim had in her pocket and laid upon the counter, the record before us does not disclose. To constitute a robbery there must be, in addition to other elements, a taking of property of another from his person or from his presence or personal physical control or protection."”

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

3. ““That some economists, in these days of inflation in unprecedented distention, are suggesting that pennies have no value, in the eyes of the law they still do and, regardless of their number, what was said in James v. State, 53 Ala. 380, 387 (1875), in quoting from Roscoe, Evidence in Criminal Cases, 1908, still applies: “ ‘ “. . . [T]he value of the property is immaterial. A penny, as well as a pound, forcibly extorted constitutes a robbery, the gist of the offense being the force and terror.””

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