Cave v. Cooley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 78 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A crime is committed in the presence of an officer when the facts and circumstances occurring within his observation, in connection with what, under the circumstances, may be considered as common knowledge, give him probable cause to believe or reasonable grounds to suspect that such is the case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Roswell v. Mayer · State v. Ochoa

2. ““It is the well-established doctrine now throughout the United States that for a crime, which they have probable cause to believe is-being committed in their presence, though it be a misdemeanor, duly authorized peace officers may make arrest without a warrant. The probable cause which will justify arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant must be a judgment based on personal knowledge acquired at the time through the senses, or inferences properly to be drawn from the testimony of the senses. * * * The courts very generally hold that an offense is committed within the presence of an officer when his senses afford 'him knowledge that such is the fact. * * * There must be a probable cause and a reasonable foundation for the judgment -of the officer that a crime is being committed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Roswell v. Mayer · Ulibarri v. Maestas

3. “"Since the publication of the C.J.S. text, the court of appeals of Ohio in Ryan v. Conover, 1938, 59 Ohio App. 361 , 18 N.E.2d 277 , 279 said: "`An officer may arrest a person when circumstances exist that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed in his presence. Section 13432-1, General Code; Bock v. City of Cincinnati, 43 Ohio App. 257 , 183 N.E. 119 ; 6 Corpus Juris Secundum (Arrest, § 6, p.) 595; 3 Ohio Jurisprudence 140, Section 11. And this is true even though no offense has actually been committed. Consequently no civil liability attaches to him on account thereof in either circumstance.' "All that Sec. 13432-1, General Code of Ohio, cited, says is: "`Officer may arrest on view. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, watchman or police officer, herein designated as "peace officers" shall arrest and detain a person found violating a law of this state, or an ordinance of a city or village, until a warrant can be obtained. "`A constable within the limits of the township in which said constable has been appointed or elected, shall arrest and detain a person found by him in the commission of a misdemeanor, either in violation of a law of this state or an ordinance of a village, until a warrant can be obtained.' "So, it is seen the holding of the court is not based upon express language of the statute but upon a rule of reason that the officer may act upon a bona fide belief on his part that the offense is being committed. So it”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colling v. Hjelle