State v. Placzek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Report of Interlocutory Rulings. If the court is of the opinion that a question of law involved in an interlocutory order or ruling made by it in any action in the Superior Court ought to he determined by the Law Court before any further proceedings are taken therein, it may on motion of the aggrieved party report the case to the Law Court for that purpose and stay all further proceedings except such as are necessary to preserve the rights of the parties without making any decision therein.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morris v. Sloan · State v. Blair

2. “Report of questions of law prior to final disposition of the case by the trial court represents a major breach in the “final judgment” rule. That rule reflects weighty policy considerations as to proper judicial administration. Multiple trips to the Law Court make for added delay and expense in a litigation process already too slow and too costly. Even though the agreement of both parties may in a civil case go far to eliminate any need for this court to concern itself with such delay and expense, the public in a criminal case has a direct and substantial interest in avoiding both. In the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, the public bears the expense of both the prosecution and the defense; and furthermore, the public is injured by any avoidable delay in convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. This court recognizes it has a special responsibility to protect those public interests even though the prosecution, the defense, and the trial court may all agree, each for its own reasons, to report a legal question to the Law Court. It is not without significance that one of the best statements in Maine of the policy reasons for the “final judgment” rule appears in Hand v. Nickerson, [ 148 Me. 465, 469 , 95 A.2d 813, 816 (1953) ], in which the Law Court was laying down self-imposed limits on the report of cases to it. Furthermore, excessive use of the report mechanism “would transform the Law Court into an advisory board for the direction of the business of the cour”

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

3. ““ ‘Importance alone must mean something more than the separate requirement that a Law Court decision on the question of law would result, in at least one alternative, in a final disposition of the action. The word ‘importance’ leads us to consider the significance of a Law Court decision on the reported question of law, not only to the parties but also to other members of the public.” 380 A.2d at 1014 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Giles v. Maine Fidelity Life Insurance