State v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence in corroboration of a witness prior to attack or impeachment, is obviously inadmissible. [State v. Thomas, 78 Mo. 327 .] If, however, such attack be made on the character of the witness, it is then admissible to prove that the witness has made statements consistent with those made as a witness. [March v. Harrell, 1 Jones (N. C.), 329; French v. Merrill, 6 N. H. 465; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf. 395 ; Jackson v. Etz, 5 Cow. 314 .] And it is also held that for a similar corroborative purpose evidence is admissible of what the witness swore at a former trial. [Henderson v. Jones, 10 S. & "R. 322.] Taking this to be the correct doctrine, and it is amply supported by authority, then the testimony of Montgomery as to what Canfield swore at a former trial would have been admissible, as well as of other witnesses as to prior consistent statements. But this testimony seems lo have been introduced anticipat,ory of an attach on the character of Canfield by the State, and, therefore, was clearly inadmissible.””

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

2. ““This language must, however, be construed as applying to deeds executed after the passage of the law. For the rule is well settled, that statutes are not to be construed as having a retrospective effect unless the intention of the Legislature is clearly expressed that they shall so operate. Seamans v. Carter, 15 Wis. 548 , 82 Am. Dec. 696 . That intention is not to be assumed from the mere fact that general language is used which might include past transactions as well as future. Statutes are frequently drawn in such a manner. Yet such general language is held to have been used in view of the established rule that statutes are construed as relating to future transactions, and not to past.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.