157 Ind. App. 105 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably 166 Ind. App. 441 - Moreno v. State (1975), 168 Ind. App. 318 - Grzesiowski v. State (1976)
30 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Chimel v. California · Draper v. United States · Ker v. State of California · McCray v. State of Illinois · Miller 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems clear, therefore, that under both the Federal and State Constitutional provisions dealing with searches and seizures there exists a requirement that the police knock and announce their authority before conducting a search of a dwelling. It is equally apparent, however, that this knock and announce requirement is not to be adhered to blindly regardless of the particular circumstances confronting the authorities at the time the search is to be conducted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““To make an arrest in criminal actions the officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or any other building or inclosure to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he be refused admittance.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Whether such information constitutes probable cause depends upon whether the probability of the accuracy of the tip is sufficiently high. This test can usually be met in one of two manners — the past reliability of the informant, or by reference to extrinsic facts to test the accuracy of the tip.” Johnson, supra, at 197 . See also, McCray v. Illinois, supra; Bowles v. State, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughley v. State
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.