322 So. 2d 222 - State v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... a search warrant authorizing the search of the `premises' at a stated address must reasonably be interpreted to permit a search of the dwelling house proper, the garage, and any other outbuildings within close proximity of the house proper that one normally associates with and includes within the word `house' or `premises.' United States v. Long, 449 F.2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 974 , 92 S.Ct. 1206 , 31 L.Ed.2d 247 (1972); Fine v. United States, 207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1953); cert. denied, 346 U.S. 923 , 74 S.Ct. 310 , 98 L.Ed. 417 (1954); State v. Brochu, 237 A.2d 418 (Me.1967)...."”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Michel · 400 So. 2d 637 - State v. Hymer

2. “(1) whether, prior to interrogation, probable cause existed to arrest the accused; (2) statements or actions by the police indicating an intention to hold or restrain him; (3) statements or actions by the accused indicating his reasonable belief that he is in custody and (4) the extent to which the investigation had focused on the accused.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 719 So. 2d 1064 - State v. Dillon

3. “To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified. The identification can be visual, that is, by testimony at the trial that the object exhibited is the one related to the case. It can also be identified by chain of custody, that is, by establishing the custody of the object from the time it was seized to the time it is offered in evidence. The law does not require that the evidence as to custody eliminate all possibility that the object has been altered. For admission, it suffices if the custodial evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is the one connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. [citations omitted] The lack of positive identification goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility. Ultimately, connexity of physical evidence is a factual matter for determination by the jury. [citations omitted]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 330 So. 2d 905 - State v. Mims · 332 So. 2d 466 - State v. Jones