780 So. 2d 1026 - McMaster 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State · 923 So. 2d 584 - State v. Lopez

2. “[P]resence in a high crime area and unprovoked flight upon noticing the police are sufficient to find a reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McGee v. State · Mitchell v. State

3. “A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences in a manner most favorable to affirming that decision. San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462, 469 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1071 , 119 S.Ct. 1468 , 143 L.Ed.2d 553 (1999); Warren v. State, 701 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Appellate review of a motion to suppress can present mixed questions of law and fact. Lester v. State, 754 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The findings of fact made by the trial court are reviewed pursuant to the substantial competent evidence standard. Ikner v. State, 756 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Warren . The trial court's application of the law is reviewed pursuant to the de novo standard. Ikner; State v. Ramos, 775 [755] So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Warren .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 338 - Tyson v. State