Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 WIS 634 - State v. Brockman

State v. Brockman’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
July 1997
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1997

7 state decisions

401939194019501960197019801990decided

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 Taylor v. United States · Glodowski v. State · The People v. Lavendowski · State v. Baltes · People v. Warner

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

  1. ““ ‘The term probable cause has a well-defined meaning in the law, which is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind, acting on all the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the magistrate, that the charge made by the applicant for the warrant is true. ... It follows from the above definitions of probable cause that it is not necessary that there should be positive proof of the existence of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant is based. It is sufficient that the sworn proof is of such a character as to induce in the mind of the magistrate an honest belief that they exist.’ ” State v. Brockman, 231 Wis. 634, 637 , 283 N. W. 338 , and cases cited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Any such magistrate [any magistrate authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases] when satisfied that there is reasonable cause, may also, upon like complaint made on oath, issue such warrants in the following cases, to- wit: . . . “(9) To search for and seize any intoxicating liquor, fermented malt beverages, or alcohol, possessed for the purpose of evading any law of this state, or property designed for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, fermented malt beverages or alcohol. Any property seized on any such warrant shall not be taken from the officer seizing the same on any writ of replevin or other like process.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.