Washington v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the circumstances of this case intent need not be shown by any specific acts or conduct; the unexplained presence of appellant in the darkened house near midnight, access having been by force and stealth through a window, is ample without more to allow an inference that he was there to steal. See Cady v. United States, 1923, 54 App.D.C. 10 , 293 F. 829 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Melton · United States v. Busic

2. ““The record reveals an unbroken police search for the intruder from the moment they were called immediately after he fled. This search included a careful step-by-step process of identification, location and finally interrogation before arrest. At the moment the police were admitted to the house, they had ample probable cause to believe that appellant had committed a felony. The statements of the young girl, the neighbor boy, the liquor store proprietor, and appellant’s neighbors adequately identified appellant as the intruder. When the police partially verified these statements by determining that a man named Artis did in fact live at a given address, they had established adequate probable cause, and were justified in making an arrest without a warrant. We need not decide whether police entry was by permission or invitation, cf. Judd v. United States, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64 , 190 F.2d 649 ; Williams v. United States, 105 U.S.App. D.C. 41, 263 F.2d 487 since ‘if there was probable cause to make an arrest — as we hold there was — there was justification for at least the peaceable entry which here was made.’ Ellison v. United States, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 3 , 206 F.2d 476, 479 . But see Miller v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 301 , 78 S.Ct. 1190 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (forcible rather than peaceable entry).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Durham v. United States

3. “That he committed the crime of assault on a girl after the illegal entry was completed does not call for a different conclusion. Although this is one objective fact which tends to indicate appellant’s subjective intent to commit acts other than theft, it is not sufficiently strong to preclude a jury finding that the original intent had been to steal. Indeed there was no showing that before the entry appellant was aware of the girl’s presence in the house. Appellant offered no evidence tending to suggest that the accused lacked motive for theft. In the absence of some such evidence the verdict cannot be disturbed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Melton