State v. Snavely’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribution to others; (3) whether the amount of drug created an inference of an intent to distribute; (4) whether expert or other testimony established that the amount of drug found in the defendant’s possession is inconsistent with personal use only; and (5) whether there was any paraphernalia, such as baggies or scales, evidencing an intent to distribute.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · 852 So. 2d 1075 - State v. Fisher

2. “[c]redibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge and is not to be upset on appeal unless the trial judge abuses his or her discretion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sam · 862 So. 2d 225 - State v. Cowart

3. “The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section V of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, an individual is not `seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment until that individual either submits to police show of authority or is physically contacted by the police. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Hodari D definition of an `actual stop' in State v. Tucker, 626 So.2d 707 (La.1993), opinion reinstated on reh'g 626 So.2d 720 (La.1993). However, because the Louisiana Constitution affords a higher standard of individual liberty than the Fourth Amendment, the Tucker court held that a `seizure' also occurs when an `actual stop' of the individual is `imminent.' The Louisiana Supreme Court explained as follows: In determining whether an `actual stop' of an individual is `imminent' we find that the facts must be on the degree of certainty that the individual will be `actually stopped' as a result of the police encounter. This degree of certainty may be ascertained by examining the extent of police force employed in attempting the stop. It is only when the police come upon an individual with such force that, regardless of the individual's attempts to flee or elude the encounter, an actual stop of the individual is virtually certain, that an `actual stop' of the individual is `imminent.' Although nonexhaustive, the following factors may be us”

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