Stanley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably Trusty v. State (1987), Lee v. State (1988)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · United States v. Di Re · Rios 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The legality of the arrest and, therefore of the reasonableness of the search and seizure incident to the arrest, turns on the law of the State in which the arrest was made, absent a controlling federal statute. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 [ 68 S.Ct. 222, 226 ], 92 L.Ed. 210 [1948]; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15-16 [ 68 S.Ct. 367, 369-70 ], 92 L.Ed. 436 [1948]; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 60 [ 70 S.Ct. 430, 432 ], 94 L.Ed. 653 [1950]. The Supreme Court has said that if the arrest was unlawful nothing that happens thereafter can justify a search as its incident. Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 262-263 [ 80 S.Ct. 1431, 1436 ], 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 [1960].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. State““We think a search which is illegal — as was the search in the case before us — because it is incident to an unlawful arrest is necessarily an unreasonable search, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. In Asner v. State, 193 Md. 68, 75 [65A 2d 881, 884], Chief Judge Marbury said for the Court, Prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures are found not only in the Maryland Constitution, but in the Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where some evidence of the commission of a misdemeanor reaches an officer through his senses, and it is augmented by other strongly persuasive facts in his possession, all of which is sufficient to convey virtual knowledge to any normal mind that the misdemeanor is then being committed, he may act upon such information as being tantamount to actual knowledge that the misdemeanor is being committed.”
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.