469 So. 2d 381 - Mitchell v. Windham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Concerning the facts of Mitchell’s arrest, the extensive record contains considerable detail. Sheriff Windham testified at the March 1982 trial that on April 25, 1980, he received two phone calls from a sheriff in Oklahoma who advised him that the Oklahoma authorities had a felony warrant for Mitchell’s arrest, that Mitchell was currently residing with his parents in Jena, Louisiana, and that the Oklahoma authorities wanted him to arrest Mitchell. Sheriff Windham told the Oklahoma authorities on each occasion that he would arrest Mitchell once he received a teletype from them. The teletype was received, confirming that the Oklahoma authorities had a felony warrant for Mitchell’s arrest charging him with taking mortgaged property out of the state and disposing of it, a felony in Oklahoma, and Sheriff Windham then ordered deputies Smith and Ashley to arrest the plaintiff. Deputies Smith and Ashley testified that they arrested the plaintiff on April 25, 1980, on the instructions of Sheriff Windham. They stated that they advised plaintiff of his rights at arrest and that he was being arrested based on a felony warrant. Deputy Smith then further testified that Mitchell was advised of his rights again when he was booked in jail at 11:05 A.M. on that date. 1^Mitchell testified that when he was arrested the deputies advised him he was being arrested based on a warrant from Oklahoma, although they did not know the charge, and that Deputy Smith read him his rights. Plaintiff was inform”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 So. 3d 747 - State v. Langley

2. “We note that a person who is not brought before a judge within 72 hours of his arrest, as required by art. 230.1 A, not only is statutorily entitled to obtain release, but also has a claim for civil damages resulting from violation of the article’s mandate. When an arrested person is released within (or at the expiration of) 72 hours, the sanction of release does not come into play, and the arrested person has only a claim for civil damages and then only if his initial arrest and the detention (of less than 72 hours) were illegal. But when an arrested person is held in custody more than 72 hours without being brought before a judge, then any detention thereafter is illegal, whether or not the initial detention was proper, and that detention (in excess of 72 hours) gives rise to (1) the right to immediate release and (2) a claim for civil damages for that illegal detention.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 660 So. 2d 76 - Carlton v. Foti

3. “A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when: [[Image here]] (4)The peace officer has received positive and reliable information that another peace officer from this state holds an arrest warrant, or a peace officer of another state or the United States holds an arrest warrant for a felony offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 So. 3d 747 - State v. Langley