Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 Md. App. 386 - State v. Rowlett

159 Md. App. 386 - State v. Rowlett’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Matlock

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

  1. “Common authority to consent to a search is not derived “from the mere property interest a third party has in the property” searched; rather, such authority rests “on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.” And if a person with common authority over the premises consents to a search of the premises, that consent is “sufficient to validate [the] search.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the facts available to the officer at the time of the search would “ ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution’ ” to believe that “the consenting party had authority over the premises,” then the consenting party has apparent authority over the premises and may lawfully consent to a search of it.”
    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.