State v. Fish’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 60 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * The essential needs of public safety permit police officers to use their faculties of observation and to act thereon within proper limits. It is not only the right but the duty of police officers to investigate suspicious behavior, both to prevent crime and to apprehend offenders." 280 Minn. 167 , 159 N.W.2d 789 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cloman · State v. McKinley

2. ““A peace officer may, without warrant, arrest a person: “(1) Eor a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; “ (2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence; “(3) When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause tor believing the person arrested to have committed it; or “(4) Upon a charge made upon reasonable cause of the commission of a felony by the person arrested. “To make such arrest the officer may break open an outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house if, after notice of his office and purpose, he shall be refused admittance.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Skinner · City of St. Paul v. Duane Johnson Another

3. ““ * * * The state does not contend that when the deputy sheriffs saw defendant drive his automobile from a business premises at the unlikely hour of 2:30 a. m., long after required closing time, that fact alone gave rise to probable cause that a felony had been committed. We agree with the state, however, that that circumstance was sufficient to give rise to an honest curiosity as to the identity of the parties they observed. The officers were within their rights to inquire as to their identity and actions. As competent police officers, it was within the scope of their duties to make such inquiry. We do not understand from our authorities or from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that when the police exercised their right to make such an inquiry an arrest occurred. The probable cause which gave rise to the arrest and search which followed arose from a sequence of events which occurred while the police were properly in the exercise of their duties. While they were making inquiry as to the identity of defendant and his status as a licensed operator of a motor vehicle, they received a radio communication that the premises from which defendant was seen leaving had perhaps been burglarized, and, during the same interval, this information was confirmed by the youth who had reported the fact to the sheriff’s office. By looking into the car, the officers observed merchandise of a similar description to that which they had seen displayed on previous occasions at the Hun”

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