2004 UT App 212 - State v. Penn’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Illinois v. Gates · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · State v. Daniels · State v. Bakalov
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the cirenmstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1 14 Davis next argues that the trial court erred by allowing Agent Seegmiller to testify that because Davis admitted that his fingerprints were on the gun, Davis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An error is prejudicial if it tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advise[s] the jury on the law.”
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.