Bennett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 20 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The evidence shows that on the evening of September 19, 1966, after six o’clock p. m. and before eight o’clock a. m. on September 20, 1966, a cafe operated by Annitta Boswell was burglarized. A juke box and cigarette machine were broken into and various coins taken therefrom. When the burglary of such cafe was discovered, it was also discovered that the service station located approximately one hundred feet from such cafe had also been burglarized. An examination of the premises was made by the officers investigating such case and the following evidence discovered pointing to the identity of the persons who burglarized such premises: “1. A window was broken and entry obviously obtained in such manner and blood was found on some of the glass coming from such window and other glass found in the premises. “2. The juke box and cigarette machine located in such building had been broken into and coins taken from same. “3. Some coins marked with fingernail polish were found on the floor. “4. A partial package of Camel cigarettes with a South Dakota State sticker number 2300 thereon was also found. “5. A cigarette lighter was found on the floor bearing the initials ‘JBB’. “6. Footprints were found at the back of the building and casts of such footprints were made and such casts were introduced in evidence as State’s Exhibit No. 7 & 8. “Mrs. Annitta Boswell, the injured party, testified that the damage to the window, juke box and cigarette machine occurred while the cafe was closed d”

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

2. ““We hold that the constitutional guarantee against multiple punishments for the same offense absolutely requires that punishment already exacted must be fully ‘credited’13 in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. If, upon a new trial, the defendant is acquitted, there is no way the years be spent in prison can be returned to him. But if he is reconvicted, those years can and must be returned — by subtracting them from whatever new sentence is imposed.””

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

3. ““The defendant having waived the time to file motion for new trial, and sentence having been pronounced, the trial court was under no obligation to permit the motion for new trial to be filed. Bedell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 443 S.W.2d 850 .””

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