Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 A.3d 817 - Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz

Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2711 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3127 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on United States v. Leon · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · United States v. Donovan · Commonwealth v. Daniels · Commonwealth v. Simmons

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

  1. “[b]ecause the particularity requirement in Article I, Section 8 is more stringent than in the Fourth Amendment, if the warrant is satisfactory under the Pennsylvania Constitution it will also be satisfactory under the federal Constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “be read in a common sense fashion and should not be invalidated by hypertechnical interpretations. This may mean, for instance, that when an exact description of a particular item is not possible, a generic description will suffice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[F]or a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8, police must obtain a warrant, supported by probable cause and issued by an independent judicial officer, prior to conducting the search.”
    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.