State v. Apt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e think the prosecutor’s decision was not an equal protection violation. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 (“Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds sup porting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged.”); United States v. Bell, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 146 , 506 F.2d 207, 222 (“Prosecutorial discretion in law enforcement, we have recognized, ‘is by its very nature exceedingly broad.’ And ‘the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation,’ but only so when ‘the selection [is] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’ ” Footnotes omitted.).”

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

2. “[W]e cannot accept the proposition that a paid informer's evidence is constitutionally inadmissible and a prosecution is constitutionally barred on a showing that officers permitted an informer to use a controlled substance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People in Interest of MN