Gaston v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 , [ 78 A.L.R.2d 233 ,] the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 , 84 S.Ct. 825 , [ 11 L.Ed.2d 887 ,] was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable.’ ” 378 U.S. at 114 , 84 S.Ct. at 1514.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Polanco v. State · Wetherby v. State

2. ““Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a search warrant may not be issued in the absence of the showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. In making such determination it is of no consequence that the affiant or affiants might have had additional information which could have been given to the issuing magistrate. ‘It is elementary that in passing upon the validity of the warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate’s attention.’ Aguilar v. Texas, supra. 378 U.S. [108] at p. 109, n. 1, 84 S.Ct. [1509] at p. 1511, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (emphasis in original), citing Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486 , 78 S.Ct. 1245 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 ; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 74, p. 872. See also United States v. Roth, 391 F.2d 507 (7th Cir.).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McAlpine v. State

3. ““Whether such information was acquired by independent corroboration or surveillance . is not revealed but none of such information is attributed solely to the informer. Since they personally knew the location of the building and of the existence of the accused they knew the informer’s story was not entirely out of the whole cloth. Such personal knowledge lends support to their otherwise unsupported conclusion that the informant is ‘credible and reliable.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State