Wetherby v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘. . . on or about the 23rd day of October, A.D., 1970, affiant received information from a reliable, creditable informant that Linda Weatherby, white female, is keeping, using and selling narcotics, to wit marijuana from her residence at 1910 Nueces, Apt. 3, Austin, Travis County, Texas. “ ‘Informant has been in the apartment within the past 48 hours and has seen Linda Weatherby use and sell marijuana. “ ‘Informant further states that the marijuana is normally kept in paper bag on floor by coffee table. “ ‘Although I do not desire to name my informant and he has not given information in the past his reliability and creditability [sic] have been established by the fact that he is gainfully employed and is well thought of by the people in the community in which he lives. Further, he has no criminal record with this department or with the Department of Public Safety. Members of this detail have maintained surveillance at above location and have seen numerous hippy type subjects go to front door, enter and stay from 3 to 5 minutes and leave.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wood v. State · Cook v. State

2. ““In Adair and Via v. State, supra, it was observed that the absence of an allegation of prior reliability is not ipso facto, a fatal defect in the affidavit. In such case, after some discussion of the problem of the first-time informant, the court held that, although no model, the following were sufficient underlying circumstances to sustain the second prong of the Aguilar test where a first-time informer was involved. “ ‘. . . Although the informant has not given information in the past, their [sic] reliability, and credibility has been established by the fact of their [sic] lack of a criminal record, the reputation in the neighborhood, and are [sic] well thought of by their [sic] fellow associates.’ Adair and Via v. State, 482 S. W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1972, No. 43,666). “Likewise, in Yantis v. State, supra [Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 24 ], the fol lowing underlying circumstances were held sufficient to satisfy the so-called second prong where a first-time informant was involved: . . . “Though the informant has not given information in the past, the credibility and reliability has been established by his excellent reputation in the neighborhood in which he resides, the lack of a criminal record and bis continuous gainful employment.” ’ 476 S.W.2d at 27 .””

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

3. ““Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 [78 A. L.R.2d 233], the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 , 84 S.Ct. 825 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 887 ], was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’.” 378 U.S. at 114 , 84 S.Ct. at 1514.”

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