Schneider v. Simonini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Information received and developed by Simonini in this case gave him a reasonable objective belief in the existence of probable cause that plaintiff was one of the hijackers. The recorded conversation between Bonura and Discorfano spoke of a botched hijacking involving “Frankie Schneider.” The information received from DeBellis’ informant named one of the perpetrators as a Frank Schneider, Jr. and described him as a “big kid” in his twenties with a criminal record who lived in the Garfield and Lodi area. Simonini was entitled to rely on the information supplied by an FBI informant described as reliable, and in fact the informant’s description of the details of the crime were verified by the victim and the investigative police reports. See State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 120-22 , 519 A.2d 820 (1987). Moreover, Simonini’s investigation of relevant records confirmed that plaintiffs appearance, address and criminal history were consistent with the other information supplied as to one of the hijackers. See United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070 , 1075 n. 6 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 926 , 115 S.Ct. 313 , 130 L.Ed.2d 276 (1994); Powe v. City of Chicago, 664 F.2d 639, 645 (7th Cir.1981). [Schneider v. Simonini, 314 N.J.Super. 583, 594-95 , 715 A.2d 1018 (App.Div. 1998).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schneider v. Simonini