Kennedy v. Crouch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 115 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * If a person who is contemplating the institution of a criminal proceeding obtains the advice of counsel learned in the law and acts thereon, he is protected not only because the adviser can view the facts calmly and dispassionately, but also because he has the ability to judge the facts in their legal bearings. Proof that he placed the facts fully and fairly before his counsel and acted upon his advice is a good defense to the charge of want of probable cause. * * *””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gladding Chevrolet, Inc. v. Fowler · Steadman v. Topham

2. ““It is an elementary rule that evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant to the issues and must tend either to establish or disprove them, and evidence which does not tend to describe or explain the facts and circumstances of the case is inadmissible.” Id. at 585 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Allewalt · 79 Md. App. 303 - Globe Security Systems Co. v. Sterling

3. ““Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Nance v. Gall, 187 Md. 656, 669 , 50 A. 2d 120, 126 . What facts are sufficient to show want of probable cause in any case is, of course, a question of law for the court; but whether such facts are proved by the evidence is a question for the jury. Cooper v. Utterbach, 37 Md. 282, 317 ; Campbell v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 97 Md. 341, 344 , 55 A. 532 ; Stansbury v. Luttrell, 152 Md. 553, 556 , 137 A. 339 ; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187 , 25 L. Ed. 116, 119 . If the facts relied on to constitute probable cause, or the inferences to be drawn therefrom, are clear and undisputed, the question is one of law for the court; but if the evidence or inferences to be drawn therefrom are disputed, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact. Nance v. Gall, 187 Md. 656, 669 , 50 A. 2d 120, 126 .” Id. at 590-91.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gladding Chevrolet, Inc. v. Fowler · 726 F. Supp. 1021 - Nasim v. Tandy Corp.