Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 74 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects. (a) A peace officer may stop any person abroad, or in a public place, who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand the person’s name, address, business abroad and destination.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riley v. State · Miller v. State

2. “[i]n our view, the question presented by Jones of when a seizure has occurred under Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution requires focusing upon the police officer’s actions to determine when a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to ignore the police presence.”); Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1351 (Del.1991) (”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flowers v. State · Loper v. State

3. “(1) Textual Language — A state constitution’s language may itself provide a basis for reaching a result different from that which could be obtained under federal law. Textual language can be relevant in either of two contexts. First, distinctive provisions of our State charter may recognize rights not identified in the federal constitution.... Second, the phrasing of a particular provision in our charter may be so significantly different from the language used to address the same subject in the federal Constitution that we can feel free to interpret our provision on an independent basis.... (2) Legislative History — Whether or not the textual language of a given provision is different from that found in the federal Constitution, legislative history may reveal an intention that will support reading the provision independently of federal law- (3) Preexisting State Law — Previously established bodies of state law may also suggest distinctive state constitutional rights. State law is often responsive to' concerns long before they are addressed by constitutional claims. Such preexisting law can help to define the scope of the constitutional right later established. (4) Structural Differences — Differences in structure between the federal and state constitutions might also provide a basis for rejecting the constraints of federal doctrine at the state level. The United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers to the federal government. Our State Constitution, on the other”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Xenidis · Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority