Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 NH 810 - State v. Chaisson

State v. Chaisson’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), State v. Gomez (1997)

3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

3701984199020002010decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Payton v. New York · United States v. Mendenhall

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

  1. “at the time of the defendant’s arrest, the police officer was on the premises merely to await the defendant’s return and was not conducting or waiting to resume the search pursuant to the search warrant____ Thus, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the police were not lawfully on the premises when the arrest occurred. No distinction exists between ah illegal entry and an illegal remaining on the premises, and therefore the State should have obtained a warrant before arresting the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hen. the entry is made into an individual’s private dwelling, where there exists a strong expectation of privacy and protection from government intrusion, the requirement of a warrant is particularly stringent. To have it otherwise would [be to] obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Next, the defendant contends that his warrantless arrest violated both the Federal and the State Constitutions and that the fruits of that arrest, therefore, should have been suppressed at trial. We, of course, address the State constitutional issues first. In construing the State constitution, we refer to Federal constitutional law as only the benchmark minimum constitutional protection”
    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.