Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Md. App. 279 - Herbert v. State

10 Md. App. 279 - Herbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Brzezinski (1989), Bowers v. State (1983)

32 state decisions

17019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Elkins v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States

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

  1. ““We believe that by history, judicial rule and application, the exclusionary rule as to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment comes into play only when the evidence is obtained by governmental action. Whatever wrong is done by the act of one individual in taking the property of another, it is no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. Burdeau v. McDowell---When an individual obtains incriminatory matter from an accused, no matter how improperly, and such matter comes into the possession of the government without a violation of the accused’s rights by governmental authority, the exclusionary rule does not prohibit its use at trial.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.