State v. Clayton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In United States v. Rhiger , 315 F.3d 1283 , 1288 (10th Cir.2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that it had, in an earlier decision, determined that the " ' "basic aspects of the 'exigent circumstances' exception [with regard to the manufacturing of methamphetamine] are that (1) law enforcement officers must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is immediate need to protect their lives or others or their property or that of others, (2) the search must not be motivated by an intent to arrest and seize the evidence, and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approaching probable cause to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched." ' "(Quoting United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964 , 970 (10th Cir.1993).) See also People v. Doll, 21 N.Y.3d 665 , 998 N.E.2d 384 , 975 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2013)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 397 - Russell v. State

2. “"The United States Supreme Court has held that ' "[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency." ' Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385 , 392-93, 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States , 318 F.2d 205 , 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) ). For example, law-enforcement officers can enter a residence without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured person or to protect a person from immediate injury. Mincey , 437 U.S. at 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 . Moreover, the state of mind of the law-enforcement officer is immaterial 'as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the officer's] action.' Scott v. United States , 436 U.S. 128 , 138, 98 S.Ct. 1717 , 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 397 - Russell v. State

3. “That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle