State v. Grimes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

105 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pursuant to § 43-276, the trial court must consider (1) [tjhe type of treatment such juvenile would most likely be amenable to; (2) whether there is evidence that the alleged offense included violence or was committed in an aggressive and premeditated manner; (3) the motivation for the commission of the offense; (4) the age of the juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others involved in the offense; (5) the previous history of the juvenile, including whether he or she had been convicted of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court, and, if so, whether such offenses were crimes against the person or relating to property, and other previous history of antisocial behavior, if any, including any patterns of physical violence; (6) the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home, school activities, emotional attitude and desire to be treated as an adult, pattern of living, and whether he or she has had previous contact with law enforcement agencies and courts and the nature thereof; (7) whether there are facilities particularly available to the juvenile court for treatment and rehabilitation of the juvenile; (8) whether the best interests of the juvenile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in custody or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; and (9) such other matters as [are deemed”

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

2. “The complaint and affidavit of [the police officers], on this 27th day of September 1993, who, being first duly sworn, upon oath says [sic]: That he has [sic] just and reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe that there is concealed or kept as hereinafter described, the following property, to-wit: Cocaine, its’ [sic] derivatives, all administering instruments whether homemade or manufactured. Venue items such as keys that would identify the person in control of 1816 N. 32 Street, Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. Also, monies and records used to conduct an illegal narcotics operation. That the following are the grounds for issuance of a search warrant for said property and the reasons for his [sic] belief, to-wit: On Monday, 27 September 1993, affiant officers were contacted by a confidential reliable informant, in the early evening hours of today’s date. In speaking with the C/I, the C/I informed affiant officers of a cocaine distribution operation eminating [sic] out of the address of 1816 N. 32 Street, Omaha, Nebraska. C/I advised affiant officers that he/she had observed a black female party known to the C/I as [codefendant’s name]. The C/I further stated that [codefendant] is the resident of 1816 N. 32 Street. C/I stated that he/she had ocassion [sic] to be inside the above forementioned address within the last 24 hours. The C/I stated while inside the residence, he/she had observed [codefendant] possessing an amount of crack cocaine. The C/I stated he/she had obse”

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

3. “A search warrant, to be valid, must be supported by an affidavit establishing probable cause, or reasonable suspicion founded upon articulable facts. State v. Grimes, 246 Neb. 473 , 519 N.W.2d 507 (1994). In evaluating probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the magistrate must make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given the totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity of and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Id. The duty of the reviewing court is to ensure that the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Neb. Ct. App. 770 - State v. Greer