State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The defendant's claim that she was denied her right to confrontation is also groundless, since the admissibility of the price tags does not prevent her from presenting rebutting evidence on the issue of value. State v. Tomanelli , supra [ 153 Conn. 365 ] 369, 216 A.2d 625 (judicially noted facts are not conclusive, but may be rebutted). The defendant had the right to contend that the price tags did not necessarily reflect the market value of the goods, but it would be incumbent upon her to present evidence to support this contention. State v. Coleman , supra, 556 , 576 P.2d 925 (dissenting opinion); People v. Cook , 233 Cal.App.2d 435 , 438 , 43 Cal.Rptr. 646 (1965); State v. McDonald , 312 Minn. 320 , 251 N.W.2d 705 (1977); People v. Irrizari , supra [ 5 N.Y.2d 142 , 179 N.Y.S.2d 102 , 156 N.E.2d 69 (1959)]. The defendant's failure to introduce evidence on this issue defeats her claim that she was denied her right of confrontation. "The defendant's arguments against the admissibility of these tags are without merit. We are unpersuaded by the argument that such tags are technically excludable as hearsay unless qualified under the business records exception; State v. Coleman , supra; Lauder v. State , 233 Md. 142 , 195 A.2d 610 (1963); 31A C.J.S., Evidence § 194d; since the inherent unreliability of hearsay is not present in this type of evidence. Rather, the fact that price tags generally reflect market value may be judicially noted, since this fact is both commonly known an”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeBruce v. State · People v. Schmidt

2. “In this day and age, items bought at retail are customarily purchased at the price shown on the price tags attached to the merchandise. Although the price listed on the tags was not necessarily conclusive evidence of the market value of the merchandise in this case, it was at least substantial evidence on which a jury could reasonably rely in determining that the market value of the goods stolen was in fact that which was shown on the price tag.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Love · 432 So. 2d 1205 - Lacy v. State

3. “In this case, the testimony of the security guard regarding the value of the stolen goods was not based on her own personal knowledge or experience. Her `opinion' was based solely on the figures stated on the price tags, and as such, should have been excluded as incompetent.”

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