State v. House’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1953 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 842 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Olmstead v. United States · Berger v. New York · United States v. Giordano
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our interpretation of the state statutes therefore benefits from the legislative history and intent of Title III and from federal decisions considering Title III.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. 7 Drafting File for ch. 427, Laws of 1969, Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau of 1969 A.B. 860, Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wis. Although the legislative history of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law is silent on whether the definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Duchow“requires suppression depends upon whether the statutory purpose has been achieved despite the violation”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Popenhagen
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.