Saunders v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Tucker v. State (1966), 3 Md. App. 38 - Frey v. State (1968)
47 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 United States v. Di Re · Steele v. United States No. 1 · Phillips v. Commissioner · Smith v. State · Haywood v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may be noted that in the Asner case the warrant commanded the search of a filling station and all persons found on or about the premises as well as the search of an automobile and all persons found therein. In the Lucich case [Lucich v. State, 194 Md. 511 , 71 A.2d 432 ] the warrant commanded the search of all buildings in a tourist court and all persons found on the premises. * * * * * * [I]t was held in State v. Moore, 125 Iowa 749 , 101 N.W. 732 , that the erroneous inclusion of a command to search the person as well as the premises of the owner did not vitiate the warrant but could be rejected as surplusage. * * In the light of our decisions and the trend of the decisions in other jurisdictions, we conclude that the warrant in this case can be sustained as to the search of the premises and all persons participating in the crime, even though we assume that it is invalid as to innocent visitors. We base our decision on the fact that, although the warrant authorized the search of ‘all persons found in the premises or who may enter the premises/ whether or not such persons were participating in the crime, nevertheless it did not violate the constitutional rights of appellant, and he cannot complain that the constitutional rights of other persons may have been violated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The constitutional and statutory provisions demand that a search warrant shall contain a description of the premises to be searched definite enough to prevent any unauthorized and unnecessary invasion of the rights of privacy. It is an accepted rule that a description in a search warrant of the place to be searched is sufficient if it enables the officer to locate the place with certainty. . . . Ordinarily the description in a warrant of a house to be searched is sufficiently definite if it correctly states the street number of the house.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green 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.