Covey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Every report or other writing is not admissible simply because it was made or rendered in the conduct of some business or profession. A compliance with all the qualifications of the statute is a prerequisite to admissibility.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Humphreys v. State · Graham v. State

2. ““[t]he applicable principles of law were settled long ago in this State. The presumption of sanity places the burden of showing insanity at the time of commission of a crime upon him who asserts it as a defense. Mullendore v. State 183 Tenn. 53, 60 , 191 S.W.2d 149 (1945); Spurlock v. State, 212 Tenn. 132,134 , 368 S.W.2d 299 (1963). While the State is not bound to establish the defendant’s sanity in the first instance, if the defendant’s or the State’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity, such evidence relieves the defendant of further proof upon that issue and shifts the burden of proof to the State [Dove v. State, 50 (3 Heis.) 348, 370-374 (1871)], Stuart v. State, 60 (1 Baxt.) Tenn. 178 (1873); King v. State, 91 Tenn. 617, 648 , 20 S.W. 169 (1892). Whenever testimony is introduced countervailing the presumption of sanity and raising a question of the accused’s insanity, the State must then establish his sanity to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 89 , 135 S.W. 327 (1910); Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378 , 17 S.Ct. 360, 362 , 41 L.Ed. 750, 754 .””

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

3. ““A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness, testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.””

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