State v. Glatzmayer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

103 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the ruling consists of a pure question of law, the ruling is subject to de novo review.”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rykiel v. Rykiel · McCoy v. State

2. “Appellate courts cannot use their review powers in such cases as a mechanism for reevaluating conflicting testimony and exerting covert control over the factual findings. As with all trial court rulings, a suppression ruling comes to the reviewing court clad in a presumption of correctness as to all fact-based issues, and the proper standard of review depends on the nature of the ruling in each case.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. State · C.A.M. v. State

3. “[N]othing in Almeida requires that law enforcement officers act as legal advisors or personal counselors for suspects. Such a task is properly left to defense counsel. To require officers to advise and counsel suspects would impinge on the officers' sworn duty to prevent and detect crime and enforce the laws of the state. All that is required of interrogating officers under Almeida and [ State v. ] Owen [, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997) ] is that they be honest and fair when addressing a suspect's constitutional rights....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 819 So. 2d 154 - Isom v. State