156 So. 2d 534 - Range v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 18 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[N]ot by analyzing the effect of each known circumstance in isolation, but by a conclusion of what a reasonable man, knowing all the facts within the cognizance of the officer would have believed under all the circumstances. These are not technical but are factual and practical considerations of everyday life upon which reasonable and prudent men act, not legal technicians. * * *" Range v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 534, at 536 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 So. 2d 291 - Martin v. State · 219 So. 2d 757 - Hall v. State

2. “"The contemporary trend of authority is to narrow the concept of immunity against searches and seizures where there is involved a motor vehicle utilized by one as an aid in committing a crime, whether in transporting the criminal or the fruit of the crime. This is so because of the high degree of mobility of motor vehicles, so that efforts to apprehend persons transporting contraband in them would be thwarted if no search of such vehicles could be made under any circumstances except by authority of warrants. Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 , adopted in Florida Statutes, section 933.19; Collins v. State, Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 61 ; Cameron v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 864 ; 29 Fla. Jur., Search and Seizure, section 12, pages 169-170."”

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

3. “"With respect to validity of the search, the piece of paper which was seized was visually recognized by the arresting officer from outside appellant's car prior to his arrest of appellant; its disclosure was not through search but through the position in which it lay upon the front seat of appellant's vehicle."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 So. 2d 129 - State v. Parnell