People v. Saars’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 25 - State v. Eisch (1980), Woellhaf v. People (2005)
92 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Harris · People v. Rivera · People v. Glaubman
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is not necessary for the arresting officer to know of the reliability of the informer or to be himself, in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause, provided he acts upon the direction or as a result of communication with a brother officer or that of another police department and provided the police as a whole are in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]hen the source of the information is a citizen-informant who was an eyewitness to the crime and is identified, the information is presumed to be reliable and the prosecution is not required to establish either the credibility of the informant or the reliability of his information.” 184 Colo, at 228, 519 P.2d 951 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Press · People v. Rueda“Thus we must determine whether Weid-maier can be characterized as a citizen-informant within this rule [that a citizen is presumed to be credible and the information reliable]. Although Weidmaier led the defendant to the apartment initially, his purpose was to participate in a narcotics purchase and he had neither any connection with the violent crimes which followed nor any reason to anticipate them. He escaped and voluntarily contacted the police as soon as he was able, openly identified himself and relayed his information without any motive of revenge or desire to receive either payment or concessions from the police.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roeder 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.