State v. Haron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We agree with the holding in United States v. Beill, [ 457 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir.1972)], that the strict requirements of Aguilar [v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 ] and Spinelli [v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 ] are limited to those cases in which the information in the affidavit has been supplied by an unnamed, unidentified informant and that where, as in the instant case, the information, or at least the greater part of it, has been supplied by the victim of the alleged crime or by identified eyewitnesses, the reliability of the information so supplied and the credibility of the informants are sufficiently established if on the face of the affidavit it appears that the named victim-eyewitness informants were in a position to have observed the matters related to the officer who submits the affidavit to the magistrate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Weiker · State v. Alexander