419 So. 2d 563 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 108 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “From the time of their initial entry, the officers of the Jackson Police Department were engaged in only one search. That search had only one goal: locating [the victim] (and assisting her, if not too late). The actions of [the officer] and other members of the mobile crime lab (after the re-entry of the apartment) were merely to effectuate the physical seizure of articles in plain view which [the officers] would have been able to seize had not the circumstances been so "exigent". There was no unwarranted delay in time, nor was there any expansion of the scope of the search. The fact that the actual physical taking of the items into the custody of the police was effectuated by an evidence technician who was trained to preserve the evidentiary value of the objects, rather than by the first officers to view the objects, is not significant.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Tidwell · State v. Taylor

2. “[t]he legislature has a very great latitude in prescribing and fixing punishment for crime.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 895 So. 2d 85 - Thorson v. State · 912 So. 2d 730 - Hodges v. State

3. “1. The capital murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of robbery; 2. The capital murder was committed for pecuniary gain; 3. The capital murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 So. 2d 63 - Smith v. State · 435 So. 2d 664 - Tokman v. State