State v. Orelup’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) If the indictment or information is for a felony, the clerk or prosecuting attorney must read it and state the plea of the defendant to the jury. In all other cases this formality may be dispensed with; (2) The prosecuting attorney or other counsel for the state must make an opening statement and offer the evidence in support of the indictment or information; (3) The defendant or his counsel may then open his defense and offer his evidence in support thereof. However, the defendant or his counsel may make his opening statement immediately after the prosecuting attorney’s opening statement; (4) The parties may then, respectively, offer rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reason, in furtherance of justice or to correct an evident oversight, ‘permits them to offer evidence upon their original case.... (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Busack

2. “This Court will only disturb decisions of the trial court regarding the admission of evidence if there is a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Devall, 489 N.W.2d 371, 374 (S.D.1992); State v. Olesen, 443 N.W.2d 8, 9 (S.D.1989); State v. Bawdon, 386 N.W.2d 484, 486 (S.D.1986); State v. Percy, 80 S.D. 1, 4 , 117 N.W.2d 99, 100 (1962). “ ‘An abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.’ ” Devall, 489 N.W.2d at 374 (quoting State v. Pfaff, 456 N.W.2d 558, 561 (S.D.1990)). Under the abuse of discretion standard, we do not determine whether we would have made a like decision, only whether a judicial mind, considering the law and the facts, could have reached a similar decision.”

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

3. “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition, is not excluded by § 19-16-4, even though the declarant is available as a witness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Anderson