Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 NW2D 798 - State v. Osborn

State v. Osborn’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2021

21 state decisions

140197219801990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Simmons 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Is charged with an offense of possession, (2) Is legitimately on the premises when the search occurs, or (3) Has a proprietary or possessory interest in the property seized.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘In order to qualify as a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure” one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else.’ Id. at 261 , 80 S.Ct. at 731 , 4 L.Ed.2d at 702 . See also State v. Shank, 191 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Iowa 1971).” Osborn, supra, 200 N.W.2d at 803 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The basic purpose of Amendment 4 is ‘to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals’ rather than property. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 , 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1730 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930, 935 ; accord, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 304 , 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1648 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782, 790 . ‘For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.’ Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 511 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 581 .””
    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.