Eisenhauer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Though it has long been the rule that a general or imprecise specific objection is insufficient to preserve error for appeal, where the grounds of the objection are obvious to the court or the opposing counsel, the error will not be waived ... We find this latter exception to be controlling in the case at bar. The clear thrust of appellant’s challenge was directed toward the propriety of the war-rantless arrest and subsequent search.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wade v. State · Tribble v. State

2. “It is to be remembered that adoption of the analysis of Gates does not mean abandoning Aguilar-Spinelli. 6 Gates did not dispense with the two requirements used in the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Rather, in Illinois v. Gates, supra, the United Sates Supreme Court criticized the strict application of the two prongs of Aguilar-Spinelli, stating that although the veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant are highly relevant factors: “These elements are not to be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case. (462 U.S. at 228-29, 103 S.Ct. at 2327). [[Image here]] “Instead they are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some indicia of reliability. (462 U.S. at 231-33,103 S.Ct. at 2329).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Avilez v. State · Barton v. State

3. “In conclusion, Aguilar was not followed in Texas in order to satisfy Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution or Article 18.01, V.AC.C.P.; it was followed because federal law demanded it. Federal law no longer demands it. In this area, the laws and constitution of the State of Texas impose no greater restrictive standard, leaving the Texas courts free to follow the lead of the Supreme Court of the United States. There being no binding authority to the contrary, today’s opinion is made to stay in step with the federal constitutional model for probable cause determinations. The duty of the reviewing court is to look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if there exists a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed at the time of the questioned action. Angula v. State, supra, at 278. 9”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barton v. State · Van Dyke v. State