Giacalone v. Lucas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 29 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. The length of the delay requested; “2. Whether the ‘lead’ counsel has associates prepared to try the case in his absence; “3. Whether other continuances had been requested and received by the defendant; “4. The convenience or inconvenience to the parties, witnesses and the court; “5. Whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons ; or whether its purpose is dilatory; “6. Other relevant factors.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 100 Wis. 2d 514 - State v. Wedgeworth · 68 Ohio App. 3d 471 - State v. Christon

2. “"The principle that law enforcement officials to protect their own safety may search the area within the immediate control of a person whom they have arrested has never been seriously challenged. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1967); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925). And in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the continuing validity of this principle when it observed: "`A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area "within his immediate control"—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.' 395 U.S. at 763 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 . "Applying these principles, the arrest of Appellant was lawful and the decision of the Appellant to enter his bedroom was reasonably close to the time and place of arrest and pursuant to a reasonable lawful purpose of changing out of one's bed clothes before leaving. The discovery of the blackjack in the bedroom was the result of a search directed by the arresting officer of the area within the intended reach of the arrestee. Under such circumstances, the discovery of the blackjack was reasonably incident to the A”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 306 So. 2d 724 - State v. Johnson · State v. Richards

3. “"In evaluating a motion for continuance; a court should note, inter alia: the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each casa"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 68 Ohio App. 3d 471 - State v. Christon · United States v. Mardian