State v. Land’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[a]s said in Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co., Mo., 191 Mo. 395 , 90 S.W. 354 (l.c. 359) (1905): ‘It is proper to examine a juror as to the nature, character, and cause of his prejudice or bias, but it is not proper to permit the juror, who admits the existence in his mind of such prejudice or bias, to determine whether or not he can or cannot, under his oath, render an impartial verdict. Such a course permits the juror to be the judge of his qualifications, instead of requiring the court to pass upon them as questions of fact.’ ” State v. Land, 478 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo.1972).”

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

2. “With a cross-section of society appearing as veniremen, an area is involved that not only cannot but should not be standardized. Recognition of this fact requires that there continue to be a broad discretion in the trial court . . ..”

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

3. “. . . Deference to the action of the trial court is no longer in the picture after such a factual finding, and . . . it was an abuse of discretion not to have sustained appellant's challenge . . . for cause. . . .”

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