Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 Kan. 52 - State v. Emory

State v. Emory’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
September 1984
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 1984 · most notably State v. Zimmer (1967), Call v. State (1965)

27 state decisions

180196419701980decided

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 Kirkpatrick v. Ault · Armstrong v. Grant · Riffel v. Turner · 97 Okla. Crim. 100 - Ludwig v. State · Burns 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The general rule is that one who seeks affirmative relief on the ground that officers violated his constitutional rights in making a search has the burden of establishing facts from which it will affirmatively appear that his rights were invaded. Thus, one seeking to impeach a search warrant has the burden of establishing the matters complained of. If the search warrant is regular on its face, it will be presumed that the officer discharged his duty in issuing it, and this raises a prima facie presumption as to the sufficiency of the affidavit; if the accused relies on the insufficiency or invalidity of either the affidavit or the warrant, he has the burden of proving it. (79 C. J. S., Searches and Seizures, § 98, pp. 917, 918; Ludwig v. State, Okl. Cr. 259 P. 2d 322 .)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.