Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 MT 255 - State v. Marks

State v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2020

14 state decisions

100200220102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · State v. Kuneff · State v. Reesman · State v. Isom · State v. Rinehart

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A judge shall issue a search warrant to a person upon application ... made under oath or affirmation, that: (1) states facts sufficient to support probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed; (2) states facts sufficient to support probable cause to believe that evidence, contraband, or persons connected with the offense may be found; (3) particularly describes the place, object or persons to be searched; and”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An affidavit supporting a search warrant is to be interpreted by the magistrate and examined by the reviewing court in a common sense, realistic fashion and without a grudging or negative attitude that will tend to discourage police officers from seeking warrants. Reviewing courts should avoid hyper-technical interpretations of warrant applications and, in doubtful or marginal cases, resolve the issue with the preference for warrants in mind.”
    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.