Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 250 A2D 203 - State v. Chapman

State v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
9
states following
July 1985
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · Ker v. State of California

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

  1. “"The interest of society in securing a determination as to whether or not a human life has been taken, and if so by whom and by what method, is great indeed and may in appropriate circumstances rise above the interest of an individual in being protected from governmental intrusion upon his privacy. [Id. p. 210] * * * * * * "We are satisfied that if the police cannot, after lawful entry, make the sort of prompt, orderly and methodical investigation of the scene of a violent death that is here shown, the protection of the legitimate interests of society will be seriously weakened." Id. p. 212.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"When the attending circumstances indicate to the officer as a reasonable and prudent person that any delay attendant upon securing a search warrant might mean the difference between life and death for the person within the home, the constitutional requirement of the fourth amendment must give way to the paramount duty of the officer to preserve a human life. Davis v. State, 1964, 236 Md. 389 , 204 A.2d 76 ." Chapman, supra, (Dufresne, J. dissenting) at 215.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The exclusionary rule (excluding from evidence the fruits of unlawful searches and seizures) has its limitations, however, as a tool of judicial control. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate police investigative techniques on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional protections. * * * ””
    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.