Almada v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although we are not bound by the Fourth Amendment decisions of the United States Supreme Court in this case, we may certainly follow its lead when we find its reasoning persuasive.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Fertig v. State · Pierce v. State

2. “Those courts independently analyzing their state constitutions to determine the permissible seope of an automobile search incident to the arrest of its driver or passengers usually have either a long tradition of such independent analysis or have sufficient constitutional history to permit departing from federal precedent through principled reasoning. In the case of Wyoming's search and seizure provision, there is little constitutional history available to provide clues as to the framers' intent when drafting it. Further hampering our analysis is the fact that this Court both initiated and then all but abandoned independent analysis of the state constitutional provision during the 1920s and 1980s and began determining search and seizure issues under the Fourth Amendment with strict adherence to United States Supreme Court decisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Laramie

3. “The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed to the criminally accused by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Phillips v. State, 597 P.2d 456, 460 (Wyo.1979). This right is also secured by Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution. Id. Although compliance with Rule 48 will go a long way in protecting a defendant's right to a speedy trial, it is also necessary to examine speedy trial issues in light of the constitutional factors which provide the underpinnings of the rule. Hall v. State, 911 P.2d 1364, 1370 (Wyo.1996). [In that regard], [wle have accepted the balancing test set out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Laramie