State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The final question presented is whether appellant was entitled to disqualify Judge Tackett, who had presided at the original trial without objection, from sitting in the new trial of the cause. It is claimed the judge was without jurisdiction to do so since a disqualifying affidavit had been filed against him pursuant to the provisions of Section 21-5-9, 1953 Compilation. Appellant relies on Section 41-15-7, NMSA, 1953 Comp., which provides as follows: "`The district court to which any criminal cause shall be remanded for new trial shall proceed thereon in same manner as if said cause had not been theretofore tried.' "In this jurisdiction there is no statutory definition of a new trial. However, the usual definition of a new trial, both common law and statutory, is that it is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a verdict by a jury. * * * Hence the statutory definition of new trial contained in many of the codes appears to be but a codification of the common law meaning. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Richter, 131 Ohio St. 433 , 3 N.E.2d 408 . * * * * * * "* * * We are of the opinion that Section 41-15-7, supra, simply means that the district court to which any case is remanded for a new trial shall re-examine and retry all issues of fact. * * * * * * "We conclude that in the absence of any such compelling reasons as were present in the case of Keating v. Superior Court, supra [ 45 Cal.2d 440 , 289 P.2d 209 ], after a case has been tried, the trial j”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Ariz. App. 258 - State v. Neil · State v. DeSantos

2. ““ * * * when there is nothing in the record to raise an inference to the contrary, slight circumstances are sufficient to prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Glasscock · State v. Roybal

3. ““If a killing is committed within the res gestae of the felony charged, whether the homicide occurred before or after the felony, is not determinative. (Citations.) To hold otherwise would render a felony-murder conviction practically impossible where the evidence is entirely circumstantial at least in a robbery case such as this one.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. Cox