Amin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 901. Requirement of authentication and identification. (a) General Provision. -The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations.-By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: [[Image here]] (7) Public Records or Reports.-Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept. Rule 902. Self-authentication. (a) Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic Public Documents under Seal.-A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or ageney thereof, or an Indian tribe recognized by the United States, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution; (2) Domestic Public Documents Not Under Seal.-A document purporting to bear the signature in his of”

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

2. “A consent to search may be restricted in scope to designated items, restricted to certain places, or limited in purpose. A time limitation or limitation on persons permitted to conduct the search may be a further restriction on a consent search. A search based on consent is proper so long as the search is kept within the bounds of the actual consent.”

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

3. ““ ‘The right of cross-examination cannot be substantially restricted. “It is not satisfied by ‘token interrogation’ and includes the right to fully cross-examine the witness on any material matter which would bear on the creditability of the witness.” ’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1027, quoting Valentine v. State, Miss., 396 So.2d 15 (1981).”

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