Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Wis. 2d 443 - State v. Noll

116 Wis. 2d 443 - State v. Noll’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Arizona v. Hicks (1987), 161 Wis. 2d 530 - State v. Petrone (1991)

43 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1701984199020002010decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Edwards · Steele v. United States No. 1 · Texas v. Certain Named & Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children

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

  1. “[i]n order to satisfy the particularity requirement, the warrant must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 276 Wis. 2d 309 - State v. REGAZZI · 388 Wis. 2d 256 - State v. Hershey
  2. “[I]n cases involving search warrants which are partially but not wholly defective ... [it is proper to] admit[] those items seized pursuant to the valid parts of the warrant and suppress[] those items seized under the invalid portion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 276 Wis. 2d 309 - State v. REGAZZI · State v. Sveum
  3. “'[I]t would be harsh medicine indeed if a warrant which was issued on probable cause and which did particularly describe certain items were to be invalidated in toto merely because the affiant and magistrate erred in seeking and permitting a search for other items as well.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. State v. Sveum

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.