Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen too many inferences must be drawn, the result is a tenuous rather than substantial basis for the issuance of a warrant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foreman v. State · Jones v. State

2. “1. There is in Wichita County, Texas a suspected place and premises.... 2. Said suspected place and premises are in charge of and controlled by ... Jeffrey Shane Wise.... 3. It is the belief of the Affiant that a specific criminal offense has been committed, and he hereby charges and accuses that: Jeffrey Shane Wise did intentionally and knowingly commit the offense of sexual assault of a child.... 4. There is at said suspected place and premises, property and items concealed and kept, constituting evidence of said offense ..., described as follows: a) Computers.... [[Image here]] Affiant has probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts:.... On 03-01-08 a sexual assault report was filed with the WFPD alleging that Jeffery Shane Wise, a 41 year old male, had engaged in sexual intercourse with a 16 year old female. On 03-03-08 during a recorded statement the victim disclosed information consistent with the offense of sexual assault of a child.... The victim advised that Wise requested on several occasions that she provide him with pictures of herself unclothed. The victim said while working at McDonald’s she took pictures of her breasts and vagina with Wise’s Motorola cellular phone in the bathroom. She said each time this was done she would give the phone back to Wise after taking the pictures. The victim said at some point Wise provided her with a digital camera. The victim said this was possibly a Kodak digital camera.... The victim said she took three pic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wise v. State

3. “[W]e agree with the court of appeal[s]'s holding, and the State's concession, that the affidavit's background information was, by itself, insufficient to support the issuance of a warrant. None of the background information gives a time frame that would corroborate the existence of methamphetamine on the premises when the warrant was requested. Aside from Officer Westervelt's assertion that he smelled a chemical odor at a specific time and place, the level of specificity of the affidavit as to time and place failed to support the search warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. State