State v. Bundy’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. ““Where the state of the evidence will support only a conviction of the higher degree of a crime divided into degrees, or a verdict of acquittal, and the jury could not find the defendant guilty of the lesser degree without making a finding not supported by the evidence, the trial court may properly refuse to submit a verdict form for guilty of the lesser degree, State v. Ransom, 62 Ariz. 1 , 152 P.2d 621 (1944); Appel v. State, 28 Ariz. 416 , 237 P. 190 (1925) ; O’Brien v. State, 39 Ariz. 298 , 6 P.2d 421 (1931).” 91 Ariz. at 330 , 372 P.2d at 332 , 99 A.L.R.2d at 812 . See also Singh v. State, 35 Ariz. 432 , 280 P. 672 , 67 A.L.R. 129 ; Viliborghi v. State, 45 Ariz. 275 , 43 P.2d 210 .”

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

2. ““Defendant’s contention that the information is defective for the additional reason that it charges in one count disjunctive allegations requiring different grades and qualities of proof is without merit since the information charged the crime in the language of the statute, A.R.S. § 13-621, as permitted by 17 A.R.S. Rule Crim. Proc. 115. Moreover, 17 A.R.S. Rule Crim. Proc. 138 permits disjunctive or alternative charges.” 372 P. 2d at 331 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Md. App. 442 - Thompson v. State