Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Neb. 981 - State v. Utterback

State v. Utterback’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
7
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably State v. Grimes (1994), State v. Johnson (1999)

68 state decisions

5601992200020102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Iannelli v. United States · Gebardi v. United States · United States v. Stanert

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

  1. “Among the ways in which the reliability of an informant may be established are by showing in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant that (1) the informant has given reliable information to police officers in the past [citation omitted]; (2) the informant is a citizen informant [citation omitted]; (3) the informant has made a statement that is against his or her penal interest [citation omitted]; and (4) a police officer’s independent investigation establishes the informant’s reliability or the reliability of the information the informant has given ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The complaint and affidavit of [the police officers], on this 27th day of September 1993, who, being first duly sworn, upon oath says [sic]: That he has [sic] just and reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe that there is concealed or kept as hereinafter described, the following property, to-wit: Cocaine, its’ [sic] derivatives, all administering instruments whether homemade or manufactured. Venue items such as keys that would identify the person in control of 1816 N. 32 Street, Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. Also, monies and records used to conduct an illegal narcotics operation. That the following are the grounds for issuance of a search warrant for said property and the reasons for his [sic] belief, to-wit: On Monday, 27 September 1993, affiant officers were contacted by a confidential reliable informant, in the early evening hours of today’s date. In speaking with the C/I, the C/I informed affiant officers of a cocaine distribution operation eminating [sic] out of the address of 1816 N. 32 Street, Omaha, Nebraska. C/I advised affiant officers that he/she had observed a black female party known to the C/I as [codefendant’s name]. The C/I further stated that [codefendant] is the resident of 1816 N. 32 Street. C/I stated that he/she had ocassion [sic] to be inside the above forementioned address within the last 24 hours. The C/I stated while inside the residence, he/she had observed [codefendant] possessing an amount of crack cocaine. The C/I stated he/she had obse”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A search warrant, to be valid, must be supported by an affidavit establishing probable cause, or reasonable suspicion founded on articulable facts____ The duty of an appellate court in determining whether probable cause existed at the time a search warrant was issued is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause did in fact exist. . . . Moreover, an appellate court is restricted to consideration of the information and circumstances contained within the four corners of the underlying affidavit.... Evidence which emerges after the warrant is issued has no bearing on whether a warrant was validly issued.”
    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.