Acosta v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the 23rd day of February, 1965, affiants received reliable information from a credible person that heroin was being possessed by Nick Aguilar, at 7216 Gonzales Street, Houston, Harris County, Texas. Although I do not desire to name this person on about four prior occasions he has given information to me concerning narcotics being possessed by certain individuals and on every occasion his information has proven to be true. Based upon the information he gave me, affiants on the afternoon of the 23rd day of February, 1965, set up surveillance of the house located at 7216 Gonzales Street, and from approximately 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM of that day we observed several persons whom we know to be users of narcotics enter the house, remain for approximately five minutes each and then leave.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aguilar v. State

2. ““(t)he court heard evidence on the issue of probable cause in the absence of the jury, and, in the course thereof, it was developed that two of the ‘several people’ whom the officers observed to enter appellant’s house, remain approximately five minutes and then leave were Victor Valdez and Martin Damian, each of whom had narcotics charges pending against them at the time of appellant’s trial and each of whom were known by the officers to be narcotics addicts. We hold that the affidavit in the instant case does set forth a sufficient basis upon which a finding of probable cause could be made. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 684 .” (1965).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Acosta v. Beto

3. “"... we hold, as we have in the past, that it is only those cases which were described by the Supreme Court of the United States in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L. Ed.2d 639 , that the name of the informer should be disclosed. That is, where the informer `had taken a material part in bringing about the possession of certain drugs by the accused, had been present with the accused at the occurrence of the alleged crime, and might be a material witness as to whether the accused knowingly' committed the act." At page 437.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. State