6 N.J. Super. 90 - State v. Pinsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellants objected to the reception in evidence of the papers seized at the time of the arrest, on the ground that the police had no search warrant. Since it does not appear that the arrest was unlawful, no search warrant was required to make legal the seizure of the evidence, State v. MacQueen, 69 N. J. L. 522 (Sup. Ct. 1903) ; 6 C. J. S., Arrest, See. 17. And even if the papers were unlawfully seized, they were still admissible in evidence. State v. Lyons, 99 N. J. L. 301 (M. & A. 1923). Appellants argue that documents unlawfully taken are not admissible unless ‘evidential per se,’ which they understand to mean that they are not admissible if their materiality is not self-evident, but must be established by explanatory testimony. This is not the meaning of the expression ‘evidential per se’ used in State v. Lyons and some of our other cases. That expression means no more than that the papers are material and competent, when we leave out of consideration the manner in which the State obtained the papers.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 47 N.J. Super. 1 - Eleuteri v. Richman · State v. Alexander