Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The first level is considered a consensual encounter and involves only minimal police contact. During a consensual encounter a citizen may either voluntarily comply with a police officer’s requests or choose to ignore them. Because the citizen is free to leave during a consensual encounter, constitutional safeguards are not invoked. The second level of police-citizen encounters involves an investigatory stop as enunciated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). At this level, a police officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order not to violate a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights, an investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop. [[Image here]] [T]he third level of police-citizen encounters involves an arrest which must be supported by probable eause that a crime has been or is being committed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patrick v. State · 115 So. 3d 1040 - Collins v. State

2. “The State also argues that Taylor waived the marital privilege because the conversation in question took place at the jail and therefore Taylor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Proffitt v. State, 315 So.2d 461, 465 (Fla. 1975), aff’d, 428 U.S. 242 , ... 49 L. Ed. 2d 913 (1976); Johnson v. State, 730 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). However, the cases cited by the State in support of this proposition involve situations where otherwise privileged conversations were taped or overheard by third parties. As a general rule, when third party eavesdroppers hear otherwise privileged communications, the communications are not privileged unless the communicating parties had a reasonable expectation of privacy. See § 90.507 Fla. Stat. (1999); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 507.2 (2001 ed.). In the instant case, however, there was no third party involved, no one overheard the conversation, and the trial court required Mrs. Taylor to directly testify as to the privileged conversation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Boyd v. State · 189 N.C. App. 248 - State v. Rollins

3. ““In weighing the probative value against the unfair prejudice, it is proper for the court to consider the need for the evidence; the tendency of the evidence to suggest an improper basis to the jury for resolving the matter, e.g., an emotional basis; the chain of inference necessary to establish the material fact; and the effectiveness of a limiting instruction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Candice Jones, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ryland Nye v. Michael Alayon · Johnson v. State