Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 SO2D 671 - State v. Coyle

State v. Coyle’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 1994

18 state decisions

801966197019801990decided

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 57 Cal. 2d 602 - Bielicki v. Superior Court · 58 Cal. 2d 469 - Britt v. Superior Court · Longo v. State · Smayda v. United States · 209 Cal. App. 2d 173 - People v. Norton

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

  1. “"Section 22 specifically preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches. The term `search' in its legal meaning implies a quest by an officer of the law. It may be secret, intrusive, or accompanied by force. Ordinarly, observation of that which is open and patent is not a search. See 29 Fla.Jur., Search and Seizure, section 2, page 159; Volume 38 Words and Phrases, Search, and 1965 supplement; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 1, pages 775-776. The constitutional guarantee of section 22 does not prohibit all searches but only those that are `unreasonable'; nor is such guarantee circumscribed by any particular formula for determination of reasonableness of a search. Rather, in determining whether or not a reasonable and valid search was made, a court will be guided by the circumstances surrounding the search and the manner in which it was carried out. Longo v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 668 , 26 So.2d 818 ; Range v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 534 ." ( 181 So.2d 672, 673 ) * * * * * * "We are aware of no legal obligation to one committing a crime that he be warned or put upon notice by police officers that he is being watched. In electing to commit a crime at a place where others may see him, one must assume the hazard that he will be seen. * * *" ( 181 So.2d 675 )”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We are aware of no legal obligation to one committing a crime that he be warned or put upon notice by police officers that he is being watched. In electing to commit a crime at a place where others may see him, one must assume the hazard that he will be seen. * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “departure from the essential requirements of law.”
    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.