State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “.. .The Cl’s drug purchase supplied Zemlik with the probable cause he needed to obtain the search warrant. But the informant’s participation was not integral to the transaction (i.e., the search) that uncovered the cocaine that was the basis for the instant charge. Clark failed to show that the C.I.’s testimony was crucial to a fair trial. Even if the Cl had testified that someone other than Clark sold him the cocaine on September 9, 2002, such testimony would have had little or no 117bearing on the outcome of the trial. Clark was not charged with distribution of cocaine on September 9, but with the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on September 12, 2002.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 226 So. 3d 1182 - State v. Handy

2. “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; and may, in addition, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars.”

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

3. “`measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment' or that the sentence amounted to nothing more than `the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering' and is `grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime,'”

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