Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 CONN 431 - State v. Eady

State v. Eady’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
7
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

132 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp. (2000), State v. Clark (2001)

132 state decisions

11201999200020102020decided

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 Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Payton v. New York · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Ornelas 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]hen the items that were seized were discovered during a lawful search authorized by a valid warrant [and when] they were discovered, it was immediately apparent to the officer that they constituted incriminating evidence . . . the seizure [is] authorized by the plain-view doctrine. . . . The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up]on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “In Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: (1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods.”
    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.