State v. Schad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On August 9, 1978, a badly decomposed body of an elderly male was found approximately nine miles south of Prescott, Arizona, adjacent to a roadway pull-off on U.S. Highway 89. The body was discovered after a highway department worker had detected the odor of decaying human flesh the previous day while driving past the pull-off. Although the worker and his coworker had stopped briefly to investigate the odor on August 8, the body was not actually discovered until the next day due to the fact that it was well concealed in the brush. After the corpse was discovered, the Yavapai County Sheriffs Department and the County Medical Examiner observed a small rope tied around the victim’s neck. It was later established that the cause of death was strangulation. Because of the advanced state of decomposition, the body was not identified until October 11, 1978, when it was established that the deceased was Lorimer “Leroy” Grove, a 74-year-old Bisbee resident. Grove had last been seen on August 1, 1978, in Bisbee, Arizona. On that morning, Grove left Bisbee driving a new Cadillac, pulling a camper-trailer. His ultimate destination was Everett, Washington, where he had intended to visit his sister. On August 3, 1978, a dark green Ford Fairmont was found abandoned 30 miles north of Flagstaff, Arizona, alongside U.S. Highway 89 by a Department of Public Safety Highway Patrolman. It was subsequently determined that the Fairmont had been rented by the defendant from a Ford dealership in Sandy,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 - Schad v. Schriro

2. “After reviewing the entire record, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Without recounting every incriminating fact which would support the conviction, we observe that defendant gave numerous contradictory versions as to how he came into possession of the victim's Cadillac; denied using the victim's credit cards, and stated he had never been in Arizona until he discovered that the authorities could place him there on several occasions; personal effects belonging to the victim were found in the Ford Fairmont; a diamond ring belonging to the victim was found on Wilma [Erhardt's] finger; although defendant professed to have never met Larry Grove, he apparently knew that the victim was an elderly man when stopped by the New York State Trooper; defendant testified that several items of personal property found in the Cadillac were his, although other witnesses testified that they belonged to the victim. Based upon these facts and other evidence presented by the State, we cannot say that the jury was unjustified in disbelieving defendant’s version of how he acquired the Cadillac. We find no error”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 - Schad v. Schriro

3. “It is well settled that a warrantless search of property is valid if conducted pursuant to a voluntary consent. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); State v. Tucker, 118 Ariz. 76, 78 , 574 P.2d 1295, 1297 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 846 , 99 S.Ct. 144 , 58 L.Ed.2d 147 (1978). “A consent to search may be evidenced by conduct as well as by words. However, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches demands a waiver by unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent.” State v. Tucker, supra, 118 Ariz. at 78-79 , 574 P.2d at 1297-98 . These same principles apply where the consent is given by one who possesses common authority over the premises or effects. In such a situation, the consent is valid as against the absent, non-consenting person with whom that authority is shared. United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S.Ct. at 993 .”

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