State v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 151 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.'”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Norflett · Hunt v. Chemical Waste Management

2. ““The jury was at liberty to reject any portions of the aforementioned testimony which they discredited and to consider the evidence before it in the light of human experiences and understandings. Thus it could fairly conclude that the defendant had quarreled with his wife, she was about to leave him, and in anger or desperation but while sane within M’Naghten, he killed her. It could also fairly conclude that, the shocking deed having been done, he then went berserk and aimlessly killed and wounded others while insane within M’Naghten. We, of course, cannot be certain as to the internal processes which actually occurred for, as the psychiatrists themselves would readily acknowledge, they do not have all the answers. But clearly the jury’s diverse treatment of the two killings does not offend common sense nor result in any unfairness or injustice; we find no basis for upsetting the guilty verdict under indictment No. 405 as inconsistent with or contradictory to the verdict under indictment No. 406.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 64 Wis. 2d 469 - Pautz v. State · State v. Upton

3. “when adjudicating federal questions, the state courts form an integral part of the national structure and that: In that capacity they occupy exactly the same position as the lower federal courts, which are coordinate, and not superior to them. There is no appeal from the state to the lower federal courts. Instead both are subject to the reviewing power of the Supreme Court, which furnishes the unifying principle. Decisions of a lower federal court are no more binding on a state court than they are on a federal court not beneath it in the judicial hierarchy. [ Id. at 37, 214 A. 2d 393 (quoting Note, supra, 48 Colum.L.Rev. at 946-47).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.