State v. Langan’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Sports Shooting Ass'n v. State, Mt. Dept. of Fwp (2008), State v. Isom (1982)
53 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 Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is this: Is there a reasonable possibility that the inadmissable evidence might have contributed to the conviction?" State v. Langan (1968), 151 Mont. 558, 568 , 445 P.2d 565, 570 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ruona · State v. Gray“"As an entry is lawful or unlawful at the time it is made, the subsequent search has the same legal character as the entry which made it possible. (Citation omitted.) Thus where, as here, the entry into defendant's residence was unlawful, the search was likewise unlawful as it was the product of the illegal entry. And a search is lawful or unlawful when it starts and does not change that character from its success. (Citation omitted.) Thus a search unlawful in its inception is not validated by what it turns up. (Citation omitted.) * * *" State v. Langan (1968), 151 Mont. 558, 567 , 445 P.2d 565, 570 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Robey“"If upon the sworn complaint of any person, it shall be made to appear to any judge of the district court that there is probable cause to believe that narcotic drugs are being * * * kept contrary to law, such judge shall * * * issue a warrant directed to any peace officer in the county commanding him to search the premises designed and described in such complaint and warrant, and to seize all narcotic drugs there found * * *. No warrant shall issue to search a private dwelling occupied as such * * *."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Strung v. Anderson
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.