James Marvin Fields v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No motion to suppress the evidence in dispute was made in advance of trial nor was the legality of the arrest and search raised at trial. The Missouri Supreme Court refused to consider the issue, holding that the procedural rules of Missouri require that a claim of an unlawful search and seizure must be made by motion to suppress evidence in advance of trial. Nothing in the record before us, however, suggests a “deliberate bypass” of the duty and privilege to vindicate federal claims in the state court. This Court is therefore not precluded from inquiry into that claim in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Frazier v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 1224, 1229-1230 (CA8 1971). [ 459 F.2d 1065 -1066].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 387 F. Supp. 421 - Yowell v. Wyrick

2. “a person for investigation on less than probable cause are present in this case. A police officer familiar with the area observes an unfamiliar car in a parking lot late in the evening. The business district is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 348 So. 2d 428 - Green v. State