Davids v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch (1974), Everhart v. State (1975)
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello v. United States · Wales ex rel. Wales Trucking Co. v. United States · Stacey v. Emery · Garske v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where some evidence of the commission of a misdemeanor reaches an officer through his senses, and it is augmented by other strongly persuasive facts in his possession, all of which is sufficient to convey virtual knowledge to any normal mind that the misdemeanor is then being committed, he may act upon such information as being tantamount to actual knowledge that the misdemeanor is being committed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An officer without a warrant should not make an arrest for a misdemeanor unless ... the circumstances are such that they would justify a person of ordinary prudence in believing that the suspected person is committing a misdemeanor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is equally clear, however, that an officer without a warrant has no authority to arrest any person for a misdemeanor, not committed in his presence or view, upon mere suspicion or belief that he is guilty. An officer without a warrant should not make an arrest for a misdemeanor unless his judgment [that a crime is being committed in his presence] is based upon personal knowledge acquired at the time through his senses or inferences properly drawn from the testimony of his senses, and the circumstances are such that they would justify a person of ordinary prudence in believing. that the suspected person is committing a misdemeanor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allen v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.