Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 NH 376 - State v. Canelo

State v. Canelo’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Heien v. North Carolina (2014), Heien v. North Carolina (2014)

43 state decisions

180199520002010decided

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 United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Calandra · Weeks v. United States · DiCarlantonio 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To establish probable cause, the affiant need only present the magistrate with sufficient facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the evidence or contraband sought will be found in the place to be searched.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Ct
  3. “We have interpreted part I, article 19 [of the New Hampshire Constitution] as requiring an objective determination of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Ct

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.