Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Ga. App. 92 - State v. Oliver

183 Ga. App. 92 - State v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2010

8 state decisions

301987199020002010decided

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 United States v. Leon · United States v. Matlock · Chapman v. United States · 176 Ga. App. 420 - Browning v. State · 162 Ga. App. 51 - Pittman 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[l]aw enforcement officers carry the burden when determining whether a third party has authority to consent to a warrantless search of another person’s property. See OCGA § 17-5-30 (b). An officer’s belief that a third party has authority to consent to the search of another person’s property should not only be based on information previously obtained in his investigation, but should also be based on the facts and circumstances existent at the time of the search. This is true particularly where there are no exigent circumstances which authorize bypassing the Constitutional safeguard of obtaining a warrant. See generally Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610, 615 [(81 SC 776, 5 LE2d 828) (1961)].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”
    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.