Durham v. Horner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that Durham had not had a [Virginia] address since 1999; that Horner never obtained the Tennessee license number to confirm whether the Jeep belonged to Durham; that Horner had not secured a photograph of Durham to show the Cl and confirm the drug dealer’s identity; that Horner believed the dealer was approximately sixty years old, and not, like Durham, in his mid-forties; and that Horner admitted by deposition that he was not a hundred percent certain that he had the correct Michael Durham.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Munday

2. “there was ample evidence for a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that Durham was involved in the three drug transactions — namely, the Cl had on three occasions identified the drug dealer as Michael Dwayne Durham; Durham had a [Virginia] address; the drug dealer had a vehicle with Tennessee license plates; Durham had a Tennessee driver’s license; and Durham’s criminal history included two drug-related convictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Munday

3. “put forward any evidence to show that [the defendant officer] acted maliciously or conspired ... to mislead the grand jury”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 255 N.C. App. 217 - Braswell v. Medina