Lane v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Hudson v. Palmer · Griffin v. Wisconsin · Hudson v. Michigan · Wilson v. Arkansas · Samson v. California
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.
“[a] parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. Nading“there is no blanket exception to the [knock-and-announce] requirement for parolees absent exigency or futility”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. Nading“person, place of residence, and motor vehicles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. Nading
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.