State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In S. v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 , the Court, after quoting the second sentence of G.S. 15-27.1, said: “ ‘To render evidence incompetent under the foregoing section, it must have been obtained (1) “in the course of . . . search,” (2) “under conditions requiring a search warrant,” and (3) without a legal search warrant. The purpose of this and similar enactments (G.S. 15-27) was “to change the law of evidence in North Carolina, and not the substantive law as to what constitutes legal or illegal search.” Therefore a search that was legal without a warrant before these enactments is still .legal, and evidence so obtained still competent. 30 N. C. Law Review 421. It will be noted that the statutes use the phrase “under conditions requiring a search warrant.” No search warrant is required where the officer “sees or has absolute personal knowledge” that there is intoxicating liquor in an automobile. . . .” State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . See also State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E. 2d 741 .”

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