Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 SO3D 464 - Ex Parte Jenkins

Ex Parte Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Texas v. Brown

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

  1. ““The purpose of the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement is to prevent ‘[g]eneral exploratory searches.’ Palmer v. State, 426 So.2d 950, 952 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). ‘General exploratory searches and seizures, with or without a warrant, can never be justified and are forbidden and condemned.’ Id. (citing Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 , 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927)). In Ex parte Jenkins, 26 So.3d 464, 474 (Ala.2009), the Alabama Supreme Court explained that ‘the requirements of particularity [of a search warrant] are met if the substance to be seized is described with reasonable particularity which, in turn, is to be evaluated in light of the rules of practicality, necessity, and common sense.’ (internal citations and quotations omitted).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “" ‘[ajlthough on appeal from an intermediate court the higher court may be limited to the questions of law raised or argued at the trial, it is not limited to the arguments there presented.’ 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 978 (2007) (emphasis added). In other words, ‘[n]ew arguments or authorities may be presented on appeal, although no new questions can be raised.' 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 297 (emphasis added).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “' "2 Search , p. 101, citing People v. Schmidt , 172 Colo. 285 , 473 P.2d 698 (1970).”
    2 later decisions 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.