State v. Millsap’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Each of the five jury commissioners submits lists of names from which individuals are selected to supplement the general venire. These lists are, for example, telephone books, light meter lists, voter registration rolls, union memberships, employee lists of large companies, a Junior Chamber of Commerce membership roster and church memberships.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Procell · 344 So. 2d 1380 - State v. Daigle

2. “A woman shall not be selected for jury service unless she has previously filed with the clerk of court of the parish in which she resides a written declaration of her desire to be subject to jury service.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Washington · 292 So. 2d 488 - State v. Stevenson

3. “"In this state an arrest without warrant is lawful when made by a peace officer when: `The peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense although not in the presence of the officer * * * This `reasonable cause' we have found to have the same meaning as `probable cause' under the federal and state constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Millsap, 258 La. 883 , 248 So.2d 324 (1971). See also U.S.Const. 4th Amend.; La.Const. Art. 1 § 7. "This `probable cause' exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonable, trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Compliance with these standards is, in the first instance, a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case. "And in determining compliance with these standards it is not the proof required for conviction which is relevant. Proof required to satisfy the requirement of probable cause, or reasonable cause to believe, 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."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 315 So. 2d 695 - State v. Nance