742 So. 2d 615 - State v. Creecy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1184 (quoting State v. Flowers, 441 So.2d 707, 712 (La.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 945 , 104 S.Ct. 1931 , 80 L.Ed.2d 476 (1984)). In determining whether probable cause existed, the court should take into account the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 773 So. 2d 259 - State v. Kirk · 763 So. 2d 21 - State v. Dorsey

2. “it is the circumstances indicating intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 773 So. 2d 259 - State v. Kirk · 763 So. 2d 21 - State v. Dorsey

3. “In the instant case, the informant provided [the officer] with the defendant’s name, his physical description, a description of his clothing, the address of the residence, a physical description of the location from which the marijuana was being sold, and the description, location, and license plate number of the defendant’s car. In addition, the informant advised [the officer] that he had personal knowledge of lr,drug activity, having purchased marijuana from the defendant at that location within the last seventy-two hours. As a result of this tip, [the officer] established a surveillance of the location during which he observed what he considered to be an inordinate amount of pedestrian traffic entering the alley leading to the defendant’s apartment. Several pedestrians entered the apartment, remained several minutes, and then left. At one point, a pedestrian became startled at the sight of the officer, entered the alley, and proceeded to the defendant’s apartment. Shortly thereafter, [the officer] observed a man, fitting the description of the defendant given by the informant, walk out of the apartment and look around. After conferring with other officers, the police then approached the defendant and arrested him. Up to that point, the officers still did not have probable cause to effect the defendant’s arrest. The only indication of allegedly illegal activity on the part of the defendant was the informant’s claim that he had purchased drugs from the defendant at this loca”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 So. 3d 742 - State v. Marino