Brothers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Brenk v. State (1993), McFarland v. State (1985)
36 state decisions
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 McCray v. State of Illinois · Cooper v. State of California · Johnson v. State · Patty v. State · Morrison v. State
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e) Determination. A motion to suppress evidence shall be granted only if the court finds that the violation upon which it is based was substantial, or if otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or of this state. In determining whether a violation is substantial the court shall consider all the circumstances, including: (i) the importance of the particular interest violated; (ii) the extent of deviation from lawful conduct; (iii) the extent to which the violation was willful; (iv) the extent to which privacy was invaded; (v) the extent to which exclusion will tend to prevent violations of these rules; (vi) whether, but for the violation, the things seized would have been discovered; and (vii) the extent to which the violation prejudiced the moving party’s ability to support his motion, or to defend himself in the proceedings in which the things seized are sought to be offered in evidence against him. (Italics supplied.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967), the Supreme Court held that when the issue is not guilt or innocence, but probable cause for search, and the State relies in good faith on credible information supplied by a reliable informant, no due process right is violated by the assertion of informant’s privilege. No confrontation clause violation occurred since the information supplied by the tipster was not used at trial. See Coopery. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967), and McCray, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State“* * * In the instant case appellant was not charged with the sale of marijuana to the informant. The informant only supplied the “lead” to law enforcement officers establishing the probable cause for issuance of the search warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shackleford v. State
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.