McBride v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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. “should be amended to eliminate the requisite showing by a defendant that there exists ‘so great a prejudice against defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county,’ ” 477 A.2d at 185 , quoting Parson v. State, 275 A.2d at 871 (emphasis in original); and we directed that henceforth,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riley v. State · Dawson v. State

2. “We thus adhere to our previous ruling in Bailey v. State, Del.Supr., 363 A.2d 312 , 319 (1976), that absent a showing of actual prejudice, a trial court’s refusal to sequester a jury constitutes neither reversible error nor an abuse of discretion. We find no abuse of that discretion here in that the defendant failed to establish any actual prejudice arising from inflammatory newspaper reports prior to or during her trial.”

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

3. “Prior statements of a witness sought for the purpose of impeachment do not ripen into discoverable evidence under Rule 17(c) until the witness has testified at trial and his credibility has been put in issue. United States v. Cuthbertson, 3rd Cir., 630 F.2d 139 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1126 , 101 S.Ct. 945 , 67 L.Ed.2d 113 (1981).”

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