State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 160 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Reasonable belief— or `probable cause' as it is termed under the federal standard—to make an arrest without a warrant exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a felony has been or is being committed. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); State v. Green, 244 La. 80 , 150 So.2d 571 (1963); State v. Aias, 243 La. 945 , 149 So.2d 400 (1963); State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993 , 149 So.2d 417 (1963). "Compliance with these standards is, in the first instances, a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case. Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); State v. McIlvaine, 247 La. 747 , 174 So.2d 515 (1965). "And in determining compliance with these standards it is not the proof required for conviction which concerns us. Proof required to satisfy the requirement of reasonable belief or probable cause is less and is what the terms imply: probabilities and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable men could reasonably be expected to act. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); State v. Bourg, 248 La. 844 , 182 So.2d 510 (1966)."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Davis · State v. Ahrens

2. “"[W]here * * * the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent * * *."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Ahrens

3. “"If the legislators who enacted this law were not de jure officers as defendants contend, we do not hesitate to say they were de facto public officers. Generally, for reasons of public policy, the acts of a de facto officer are valid as to third persons and the public until the officer's title to office is adjudged insufficient. In the meantime, the officer's authority may not be collaterally attacked or inquired into by third persons. Acts of de facto officers, then, are clothed with the same validity as the acts of de jure officers."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. BD. OF ETHICS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS · 697 So. 2d 240 - Perschall v. State