Fernandez 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. ““Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial as the state was allowed, over appellant’s objection, to interrogate appellant concerning some forty previous driving infractions. The record reflects that the state’s interrogation was allowed only after counsel for appellant had inquired upon direct examination as to the number of convictions appellant had received. Thus the state was properly permitted to fully cross-examine concerning same. See Lunsford v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 82 , 261 S. W. 2d 591 . . . .” (p. 937. See, also State v. Dickens, 68 Idaho 173 , 191 P. 2d 364 ; Wiley v. State, Okla. Crim., 349 P. 2d 30 .)”

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