171 Ind. App. 350 - Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Montague v. State (1977), 177 Ind. App. 258 - Schwartz v. State (1978)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Katz v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Vale v. Louisiana · 64 Cal. 2d 504 - People v. Leal · Smith v. State
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Hardy walked over to the car for the purpose of checking it for valuables. As he stood there looking in the window, he noticed a small package with a needle sticking out of it lying on the front seat on the driver’s side. Clearly, Officer Hardy had a right to stand in the alley and look into Cooper’s car. Thus, the needle and package were subject to seizure under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant.’’ (Our emphasis)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Narcotics are contraband and dangerous, causing untold harm to users and to the public by illegal use. A more liberal interpretation favorable to drug addicts and those illegally dealing in narcotics cannot reasonably be given____[B]ut to the extent those cases [cited from other jurisdictions] stand for a rule that a usable amount of a narcotic is necessary for conviction, we refuse to follow them.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the State's proof as to the. substance found is inadequate because there was no testimony indicating the amount obtained and that the testimony indicated the amount was a mere residue and was insufficient for usage as a dose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beeler 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.