Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court with its tremendous caseload should not be expected to leaf through a voluminous record hoping to find the matter raised by appellant and then speculate whether it is that part of the record to which appellant had reference.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Segundo v. State · Bridge v. State

2. “"The holding in Billie on rehearing is suspect in light of the language in Britt v. North Carolina, supra, and other cases- Britt made clear that the transcript of the first trial was to be used in defense as well as in cross-examination and possible impeachment of the prosecution’s witnesses. Britt also made clear that an indigent defendant need not establish a particularized need for any portion of transcript before he was entitled to the same. Note that in United States v. Baker, 523 F.2d 741 (5th Cir.1975), and United States v. Smith, 605 F.2d 839 (5th Cir.1979), under Britt an indigent defendant is entitled to a complete transcript of previous trial, without any showing of a particularized need for the same. United States v. Smith, supra; State v. Goodall, 407 A.2d 268 (Me.1979). Thus the viability of the opinion on rehearing in Billie must be questioned."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McKibbon v. State · Easily v. State

3. “it is usually only that testimony that could be used for discovery and impeachment,”

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