564 So. 2d 453 - Hamm v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"[T]he fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action." Scott v. United States , 436 U.S. 128 , 136 [ 98 S.Ct. 1717 , 1722 , 56 L.Ed.2d 168 ] (1978).' " Powell v. State , 548 So.2d 590 , 600 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Washington v. State · 922 So. 2d 145 - Washington v. State

2. ““The GRAND JURY of said County charge, that, before the finding of this indictment MATTHEW MARK STE PHENSON whose name is to the GRAND JURY otherwise unknown than as stated, did, in the course of committing the theft of a color television set, the property of King Solomon Coats, use force against the person of King Solomon Coats with the intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance and in so doing caused serious physical injury to King Solomon Coats by stabbing him with a knife, in violation of § lSA-8-jl of the Code of Alabama. During the aforesaid robbery in the first degree, the said MATTHEW MARK STEPHENSON, did, with the intent to cause the death of King Solomon Coats, cause the death of King Solomon Coats by stabbing him with a knife, a violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(2) of the Code of Alabama.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

3. “"`"When an officer makes an arrest, which is properly supported by probable cause to arrest for a certain offense, neither his subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the wrong offense vitiates the arrest." United States v. Saunders , 476 F.2d 5 , 7 (5th Cir. 1973). See generally 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.1(e), at 416 n. 168 (2d ed. 1987). "`"[T]he existence vel non of . . . a [constitutional] violation turns on an objective assessment of the officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time. Subjective intent alone . . . does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 145 - Washington v. State