986 So. 2d 928 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 41 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 So. 3d 746 - King v. State · 42 So. 3d 503 - Rowland v. State

2. “The order ... dismissing the prisoner’s motion or otherwise denying relief under [the Mississippi Uniform Post-Convic tion Collateral Relief Act] is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under the [the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act]. Excepted from this prohibition is a motion filed under Section 99-19-57(2), raising the issue of the offender’s supervening mental illness.... Likewise excepted from this prohibition are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States that would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that, if it had been introduced at trial, it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise exempted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.”

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

3. “the test for probable cause in Mississippi is totality of the circumstances.... This Court has further defined probable cause as: “a practical, nontechnical concept, based upon the conventional considerations of every day life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. It arises when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge, or of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a crime has been committed and that a particular individual committed it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 So. 3d 469 - Gillett v. State