United States v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 11 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) a reasonable probability that the evidence in question would have been discovered by lawful means but for the police misconduct; (2) that the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct; and (3) that the police were actively pursuing [an] alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Buchanan · United States v. Finch

2. “The test to determine if two statutes prohibit the same offense is a matter of statutory construction; the court must determine whether each statute requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). What appellant fails to recognize is that “the Blockburger test is to be applied to the elements of proof required by the statute and not to the actual evidence or proof adduced at trial in a given case.” Davis v. Herring, 783 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir.1986). See, e.g., United States v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105 , 105 S.Ct. 611 , 83 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. State

3. “Under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence is admissible that otherwise would be excludable if it inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means had the illegal conduct not occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 540 So. 2d 805 - Ham v. State