State v. Oien’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An individual is only entitled to the protection of the exclusionary rule [and to challenge a search] if the individual's own Fourth Amendment rights were violated and not the rights of a third party.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bachmeier · State v. Torkelsen

2. “We will defer to the [district] court's findings of fact in the disposition of a motion to suppress. Conflicts in testimony will be resolved in favor of affirmance, as we recognize the [district] court is in a superior position to assess credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence. Generally, a [district] court's decision to deny a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the [district] court's findings, and if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”

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

3. “A guest generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the [host's home].”

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