457 So. 2d 459 - Oakley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[C]onvictions based on eyewitnesses identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State · 516 So. 2d 889 - Hutchinson v. State

2. “'The first question is whether the initial identification procedure was”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State · 516 So. 2d 889 - Hutchinson v. State

3. “" 'The first question is whether the initial identification procedure was "unnecessarily" [ Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)] or "impermissibly" [ Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)] suggestive. If it is found to have been so, the court must then proceed to the question whether the procedure found to have been "unnecessarily" or "impermissibly" suggestive was so "conducive to irreparable mistaken identification" [ Stovall ] or had such a tendency "to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification" [ Simmons ] that allowing the witness to make an in-court identification would be a denial of due process.' United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette , 428 F.2d 912 , 914-915 (2d Cir. 1970)."”

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