Phenix v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There must, of course, be a nexus — automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities or contraband — between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. Thus in the case of ‘mere evidence,’ probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. In so doing, consideration of police purposes will be required.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hamilton · Snider v. State

2. ““A written extrajudicial utterance may be admissible in evidence to prove the truth of the assertions made; that is, for its testimonial value, if one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule is satisfied, 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1420, et seq. (3rd ed. 1940); McCormick, supra, at 480-625, or it may be admissible in evidence without regard to the truth of the assertions made; that is, for its non-testimonial value, as a circumstance, provided it is legally relevant. Haynes v. State, 475 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); 6 Wigmore, supra, § 1788-1792. The latter use of the extrajudicial written utterance to which the hearsay rule does not apply has sometimes not been fully articulated and has been said to be part of the res gestae. “The note was not offered or received in evidence for its testimonial value; that is, for the truth of the assertions made. The note was not admitted to show ‘more on the way,’ that ‘C.P.’ ‘owed’ ‘A.P.’ ‘four lids worth’ or that ‘C.P.’ was going to ‘check with Dan on the 150 tomorrow.’ ””

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

3. “‘were unwaveringly applied in every case, it is obvious that there could never be a valid seizure of anything not described in the search warrant. However, the Marrón doctrine has generally not prevailed when the search and seizure was considered reasonable under all the circumstances. Many lower and intermediate federal courts, including those of this circuit, have regarded Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947), as formulating an exception to the strict language of Marrón, thus permitting the introduction of the evidence seized in searches of the type involved in the case sub judice.’ 405 F.2d at 257 .””

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