State v. Callaghan’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1983
13 state decisions
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 Mapp v. Ohio · Elkins v. United States · Agnello v. United States · Harris v. United States · Gouled 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * # Only the person or persons whose rights have been infringed may claim the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable search and seizure. Casey v. United States, (C.A. 9th Cir.), 191 F.2d 1 , (certiorari granted 342 U.S. 892 , 72 S.Ct. 200 [ 96 L.Ed. 668 ] revd. on other grounds 343 U.S. 808 , 72 S.Ct. 999 , 96 L.Ed. 1317 ; Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 ; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 , 80 S.Ct. 1431 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 . The defendant here did not have such an interest in the Watson home as to give him the right to invoke the immunity. He was a mere guest or invitee, and such interest is not sufficient. See 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 52, pp. 810-814, where numerous state and federal authorities are collected. This rule is not in conflict with any of the recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Keeling (Ohio Com.Pl.1962), 182 N.E.2d 60 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Doe““* * * A search may be made pursuant to a valid arrest without a search warrant. United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 , 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 [ 82 A.L.R. 775 ] (1932); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925); 51 A.L.R. 409 . It is permissible to search a dwelling where a valid arrest had been made there Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947). The objects of such a search are the fruits and instrumentalities of the crime. However, the arresting officer may not indiscriminately root through the dwelling just because there has been an arrest there. Carlo v. United States, (2nd Cir. C.A. 1961), 286 F.2d 841 , cert. denied, 366 U.S. 944 , 81 S.Ct. 1972 , 6 L.Ed.2d 855 . The search must be reasonable in scope.” 144 Mont. 407 , 396 P.2d 824 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Means
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.