Norman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule is that when counsel objects to evidence, he must point out to the trial judge the specific reason for or the ground of the objection or else the objection is waived.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 310 So. 2d 908 - Lay v. State · 708 So. 2d 1327 - Duplantis v. State

2. “Several of the items in controversy here were not seized by the officers when they initially entered the house, but were seized sometime later that day after the subjects had been arrested. Ordinarily, a subsequent reentry and seizure of items after the lapse of unreasonable time renders such items inadmissible in evidence. However, in this case, the delay was occasioned by discovery of bomb devices, at which time the search was not completed until the bomb squad came and removed the bombs. While waiting for the bomb squad, officers maintained a status quo by keeping the house under constant guard and surveillance. Then the search incident to the arrest was completed and other evidentiary items taken. There was not shown any unreasonable lapse of time between the arrest of the appellant (and the immediate search incidental to the arrest), and completion of the search after removal of the bombs. The final portion of the search after reentry was merely a continuation of the original search, and cannot be considered unreasonable in any legal sense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 349 So. 2d 1059 - Crum v. State

3. “"Appellant's argument concerning statements made by him after he and the other occupants of the house were brought to the front at 1148 Lewis Street is without merit. Abundant testimony before the trial court demonstrated that the statements then elicited by officers questioning appellant were freely and voluntarily given after FBI Agent Holder had advised appellant of his rights... . "The trial court found upon adequate testimony at an evidentiary hearing that the appellant's incriminating answers to specific questions were freely, voluntarily and intelligently given after he was adequately advised of his rights, ..." 302 So.2d at 259 .”

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