Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 NW2D 553 - State v. Swartz

State v. Swartz’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2005

17 state decisions

801976198019902000decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Een v. Consolidated Freightways · State v. Johnson · State v. Birkestrand · State v. Hagen

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

  1. ““Principles applicable to determining the legality of the search of defendant’s residence are reviewed in State v. Hagen, 258 Iowa 196, 205 , 137 N.W.2d 895, 900 (1965). A search is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success. It is not justified by what it turns up. State v. McManus, 243 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa, filed June 30, 1976). Moreover, an unlawful search taints all evidence obtained in the search or through leads uncovered by the search. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-485 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 416 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 453-54 (1963). “Here the first search warrant issued without probable cause. The search of the package at the post office was therefore unlawful. Information from that search was used to obtain the second warrant. This tainted the second warrant and made the search of defendant’s home unlawful.””
    2 later decisions 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.