Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 MT 6 - State v. McLees

State v. McLees’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2026

22 state decisions

120200020102020decided

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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Matlock · Illinois v. Rodriguez · State v. Siegal

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. “`At the risk of belaboring the obvious, private residences are places in which the individual normally expects privacy free of governmental intrusion not authorized by warrant, and that expectation is plainly one that society is prepared to recognize as justifiable.' State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 48-49 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 . `The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is to protect the privacy and security of individuals and safeguard the sanctity of the home against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.' Dorwart v. Caraway, 1998 MT 191, ¶ 21 , 290 Mont. 196, ¶ 21 , 966 P.2d 1121, ¶ 21 [(overruled on other grounds)].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““when the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”
    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.