Halquist v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled in this State that if the different offenses charged in the different counts grow out of the same transaction, or if they be but different species of the same offense, the several counts may and should be joined in the same indictment. (citations omitted). In Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669 , 216 S.W.2d 689 , supra, the Court said: ‘The insertion of several counts charging kindred offenses which the proof may develop to be a violation of one statute or another is a common and approved practice, and tends to a much more rapid dispatch of the business of the Court. We do not think such practice is either unfair or prejudicial to defendants.’ And where the several counts of an indictment are based upon the same transaction, the State cannot be required to elect to proceed upon one count or the other. Raine v. State, 143 Tenn. 168 , 226 S.W. 189 ; Lawless v. State, supra. [ 72 Tenn. 173 ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Beard · Meade v. State

2. “While there is no constitutional right to be arrested, (citation omitted), courts have recognized that an unreasonable delay between the commission of the offense and the arrest may violate the defendant’s constitutional rights if the delay results in prejudice to him or was part of a deliberate, purposeful and oppressive design for delay.”

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