Orkin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Kesler v. State (1982), Reaves v. State (1978)
3 federal appellate · 62 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]onspiracy ... can only be defined in conjunction with ... [a] substantive crime....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The construction to be given the statute is rather what is reasonably necessary and essential to the preparation of and actual prosecution for a crime. What is reasonable will depend upon the facts of a given case and must necessarily rest in the controlled discretion of the district attorney, subject to review by the trial court. Where there is evidence to support the decision of a trial judge on motion to suppress evidence, that decision will not be disturbed on appeal. [Cits.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any publication of the information or evidence obtained under a warrant issued [for the interception of wire or oral transmissions] other than that necessary and essential to the preparation of and actual prosecution for the crime specified in the warrant shall be an unlawful invasion of privacy . . . and shall cause such evidence and information to be inadmissible in any criminal prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. North 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.