State v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for ... concluding]” that probable cause existed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lachterman · State v. Miller

2. “the discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party or by the Attorney General, prosecuting attorney or circuit attorney having jurisdiction.” Id. at 812 . The gist of the offense was Holland’s fraudulent misrepresentation that the property sold to the buyers was “free and clear” when, in fact, it was encumbered by two deeds of trust. Id. The buyers learned of the fraud on October 10, 1986, and the information was given to the Attorney General on November 4, 1986. Id. The court held that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Michael J. Frese

3. “sufficient particularity to validate a warrant inadquately [sic] limited upon its face may be supplied by the attachment or incorporation by reference of the application for the warrant and the supporting affidavits.”

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