State v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2005
14 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
Relies on United States v. Leon · Stanford v. Texas · Massachusetts v. Sheppard · Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York · State v. Gopher
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The warrant in this case does not describe with particularity the article to be seized. The warrant authorizes the seizure of a package or parcel and the ‘contraband above described,’ but there is not an ‘above described’ large shipment of dangerous drugs or ‘pot’ described in the warrant as mentioned in the application. “Standing alone, the warrant would be invalid for its failure to describe with particularity the contraband to be seized. If the warrant had been directed to an officer other than the officer who had made and signed the application, it would be invalid. However, in this case, Officer Wevley not only signed the application, which adequately described the contraband as a package containing ‘pot,’ but he was also the same officer who served the warrant and seized the package of pot mentioned in the application.” State v. Peterson, supra, 741 P.2d at 394 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dallmann · State v. Pipkin““Officer Wevley did not go forth on a fishing trip with the search warrant. He identified the particular thing to be searched for in his application as a package of pot. He used the warrant to search for that particular thing, and that is what he seized. The District Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized.” State v. Peterson, supra, 741 P.2d at 394 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dallmann““A person commits the offense of criminal possession of dangerous drugs if he possesses any dangerous drug, as defined in 50-32-101.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crowder
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.