Grable v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person who does not meet the standards and qualifications set forth in this subchapter or any made by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training shall not take any official action as a police officer, and any action taken shall be held as invalid.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. City of Kensett · Goode v. State

2. “Qualifications of candidates for police positions in Arkansas are set by regulations promulgated by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. By Ark. Code Ann. §§ 12-9-104 and 12-9-106 (1987), the general assembly has empowered the commission to establish minimum selection and training standards and general qualifications of law enforcement personnel. Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training Regulations . . . provide: § 1002(2) (c). Every officer employed by a law enforcement unit shall be fingerprinted and a search made of state and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record. § 1002(2) (i). Every officer employed by a law enforcement unit shall be examined by a licensed psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist, who, after examination, makes recommendations to the employing agency. § 1002(4). The minimum standards for employment or appointment must be completed before employment eligibility is established. Employment eligibility should depend upon the results and recommendations received by the investigator and examiners.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Freeman v. City of DeWitt

3. “If the state is willing to stand on the charge of which the defendant complains, so be it, and the court can then determine its validity. If there is a valid charge against the defendant other than the one to the validity of which he objects, the state should be able to produce it and should have the duty to do so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Freeman v. City of DeWitt