Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 ND 193 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2020

15 state decisions

80200220102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Franks v. Delaware · California v. Greenwood · United States v. Sumpter · State v. Rydberg

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

  1. ““We will not reverse a trial court’s findings of fact in preliminary criminal proceedings if, after the conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affir-mance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the findings and if the trial court’s decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Where drug residue is discovered in the garbage, `it is well established that affidavits based almost entirely on the evidence garnered from garbage may be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Probable cause to search does not require the same standard of proof necessary to establish guilt at a trial; rather, probable cause to search exists if it is established that certain identifiable objects are probably connected with criminal activity and are probably to be found at the present time at an identifiable place.” All the information presented to establish probable cause should be taken together, not analyzed in a piecemeal fashion. The magistrate is to make a practical, commonsense decision on whether probable cause exists to search that particular place.... We apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test to review whether information before the magistrate was sufficient to find probable cause, independent of the trial court’s findings. More than “bare-bones” information must be presented to the magistrate in order to establish probable cause.”
    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.