State v. Warfield’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1999 · most notably Agnello v. United States (1925), State v. Johnson (1986)
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Gouled v. United States · Amos v. United States · Hoyer v. State · Jokosh v. State · Jones v. Shannon
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No motion was made to suppress the testimony obtained as the result of the unlawful search, or to have the property thus unlawfully seized restored to the defendant. As a rule, courts require this motion to be made previous to the trial in order to avoid the necessity of entering upon a collateral inquiry during the course of the trial. However, where the offer of the evidence is accompanied with the disclosure showing that the evidence was obtained through a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights by an officer of the state, and under circumstances where the protection of a defendant in his constitutional rights does not involve an interruption of the usual course of the trial, the evidence should not be received even in the absence of a previous motion to suppress. Gouled v. U. S., 255 U. S. 298 , 41 Sup. Ct. 261; Amos v. U. S., 255 U. S. 313 , 41 Sup. Ct. 266.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Potman v. State““ ‘It must be first premised that where an officer, politely and decently and without physical threat, has assumed to act in his official capacity, he is acting de facto, if not de jure, and a peaceful citizen should not forcibly resent the action, even though he knows the officer is, as to the act, greatly exceeding his authority, resting confidently upon the belief that this submission will not impair any of his constitutional rights; for, as the courts have repeatedly held, such action will not be taken to be a consent to an unlawful search or arrest, but merely a peaceful submission to officers of the law.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holt 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.