Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Beeler 226 - Epps v. State

Epps v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 1975
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 1975

20 state decisions

1001947195019601970decided

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 Robertson v. State · Hughes v. State · 8 Smith & H. 370 - Jones v. State · Thompson v. State

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

  1. ““The officers in the instant case had been given their information about the accused some days before this arrest. They made no attempt to secure a search warrant. They contented themselves with waiting until they saw him driving out one of the streets of Morristown when they followed him and made the arrest. Their expedition was more or less of a fishing-expedition. If they found whiskey so well so good, but if they did not find any this too was all right with the officers. More is required of our law enforcement officers. They cannot secure evidence in this manner and use it as a basis to convict the one in possession of the evidence thus secured. They do say Epps said ‘you have got me’, but this statement was made after his unlawful arrest. The statement is a logical sequence and part of the unlawful arrest and must be disregarded.””
    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.