Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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. “[t]he length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newport v. State · Harvey v. State

2. “"We have repeatedly said that a judge, in the trial of a case before a jury, should abstain from expressing or indicating by word, deed or otherwise his personal views upon the weight or quality of the evidence. Expressions of opinion, or remarks, or comments upon the evidence which have a tendency to indicate bias on the part of the trial judge, especially in criminal cases, are regarded as an invasion of the province of the jury and prejudicial to an accused. [Citations omitted.]" Spear v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 599 , 194 S.E.2d 751, 753 (Va.1973).”

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

3. ““ * * * [W]e find sufficient support in the record as to a whole for a determination that the delay was occasioned, at least in part, by the defendant himself. s⅜ * * * * # “ * * * However, the tenor of the whole record — particularly the emphasis placed thereon by defendant in the affidavit and motions submitted by him — reflects the delay to have been occasioned, at least in part, by his desire and effort to obtain private legal representation. * * ” (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Binger v. State