Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 Ga. App. 786 - Barron v. State

109 Ga. App. 786 - Barron v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
March 1986
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1986

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

70196219701980decided

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 · Ker v. State of California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello v. United States · Hester 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Could it be said at the time of arrest (emphasis in the original) that this was a crime because done illegally, that is, not within the exception *■ * * which allows the owner, if the dismantling is otherwise legally done, to mail in the identification plate after removal. The sort of destruction being carried on is a possible legal act, but not statistically probable (emphasis ours) considering the age, condition and location of the vehicle * * * Where all the circumstances surrounding the demolition of the car suggest although they by no means constitute proof that a violation of law was in process, the intent or purpose with which it was done being the only point in doubt, sufficient, cause existed so that the burden shifted to the defendant to show himself within the exception to the criminal statute. That is, the officers arrested at their peril, but the arrest was valid when considered in connection with the other circumstances of this particular case, as what the officers saw and heard by the use of their senses established that the defendant was wilfully removing the motor vehicle identification and justified the belief that he did not intend to send the plate in to the Commissioner. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.