Bost v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he court looks to the legislative history, prior case law, the purposes upon which the statutory framework was based, and the statute as a whole.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. O'Brien · Newell v. Runnels

2. “[W]e consider only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing. We extend great deference to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and those findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. We review the evidence and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. We make our own independent appraisal as to whether a constitutional right has been violated by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Md. App. 716 - Sparkman v. State · 188 Md. App. 691 - Williams v. State

3. ““three officers, wearing jackets with ‘Police’ written across them, left their vehicle and walked towards about a dozen people who were drinking alcohol on the sidewalk in a no-loitering area. Officer Phillip testified that he 'conducted a contact,’ at which time, one of the people, later identified as Robert Bost, immediately left, walking away ‘in a briskful manner’ while clutching his right waistband with his right elbow. Officer Phillip said that Bost started!,] picked up his pace, and ‘immediately took flight on foot crossing the street onto the Prince George’s County side.’ Officer Phillip testified that he had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Bost was concealing something and that based upon his experience, he believed that Bost was 'trying to conceal a weapon’ and because Bost was ‘holding ... his waistband, continuously looking back.' Bost ran into a wooded area, falling several times, each time clutching at his right side. The officers followed in pursuit, eventually crossing into Prince George's County, Maryland,””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schreyer v. Chaplain