State v. Danko’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2008 · most notably State v. Nelson (1979), United States v. Wolffs (1979)
6 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1385 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harker v. State · Barker v. State““[I]n our consideration of the State’s appeal, we shall treat the conduct of Hill and [the MP] as constituting a technical violation of the [PCA] although neither has been charged nor convicted. This does not, however, dispose of the question presented on appeal. We cannot agree with defendants that a technical violation of the [PCA] under the circumstances shown to exist warrants the suppression ,of the evidence seized . . . .” 219 Kan. at 493 . “United States v. Walden (4th Cir. 1974), 490 F.2d 372 , cert. den. 416 U.S. 983 , 40 L. Ed. 2d 760 , 94 S. Ct. 2385 , reh. den. 417 U.S. 977 , 41 L. Ed. 2d 1148 , 94 S. Ct. 3187 , is one of the few reported cases dealing directly with the exclusion of evidence in a posse comitatus situation and we find the rationale therein persuasive.” 219 Kan. at 495 . “The [Walden] court reasoned that the Navy regulation . . . should be given the same legal effect as the Posse Comitatus Act.” 219 Kan. at 496 . “We agree with the view of the Walden court that the [PCA] expresses a policy that is for the benefit of the people as a whole, rather than a policy which could be characterized as designed to protect the personal rights of individual citizens as declared in the Fourth Amendment. The absence of cases involving a posse comitatus situation, such as at bar, considered in the light of the longtime presence of military establishments in this state, leads us to the position adopted by the Walden court that application of the extraordinary remedy ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“expresses a policy that is for the benefit of the people as a whole, but not one that may be characterized as expressly designed to protect the personal rights of defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State
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.