Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 F.2d 449 - Morrison v. United States

Morrison v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

262 F.2d 449 · 1958

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
12
states following
November 1986
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 18 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently November 1986 · most notably Dorman v. United States (1970), Wayne v. United States (1963)

55 federal appellate · 18 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 12 states

6901958196019701980decided

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 Johnson v. United States · Weeks v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Agnello v. United States · Harris 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The officers entered the house to make a search. It was, to be sure, a search for a person rather than the usual search for an article of property, but it was a search. The officers made this indubitably clear in their testimony; they went into the house to look for Morrison. It is true they intended to arrest him if they found him, and so the ultimate objective was an arrest. The Government urges that this latter fact requires that we apply the rules of law pertaining to arrest rather than the rules governing search. But the search was a factual prerequisite to an arrest; it was the first objective of the entry; the officers did in fact search the house. They entered to make a search as a necessary prerequisite to possible arrest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Does a policeman without a warrant, but with probable cause to believe that a fel ony has been committed and that the felon is within his dwelling house, have a right to enter the dwelling when there is no response to repeated knocking on the door and when there is no urgency for an arrest?””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We think that under the authorities officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present.””
    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.