Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 N.C. App. 565 - State v. Smith

124 N.C. App. 565 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2016

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

150199620002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Malley v. Briggs · Michigan v. Long · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Massachusetts v. Upton

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

  1. “(1) The anticipatory warrant must set out, on its face, explicit, clear, and narrowly drawn triggering events which must occur before execution may take place; (2) Those triggering events, from which probable cause arises, must be (a) ascertainable, and (b) preordained, meaning that the property is on a sure and irreversible course to its destination; and finally, (3) No search may occur unless and until the property does, in fact, arrive at that destination.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`affidavits supporting the application for an anticipatory warrant must show [on their face], not only that the agent believes a delivery of contraband is going to occur, but also how he has obtained this belief, how reliable his sources are, and what part government agents will play in the delivery.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]n anticipatory search warrant, by definition, is `not based on present probable cause, but on the expectancy that, at some point in the future[,] probable cause will exist.'”
    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.