Ludlow v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hall (1975), Wilson v. State (1975)
64 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 Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California · Chambers v. Maroney · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The State's argument here misinterprets the scope of that exception. This Court has already rejected the notion that the nature of the items to be seized can alone create automatic exceptions to Fourth Amendment safeguards. State v. Dusch (1972) [ 259 Ind. 507 ], 289 N.E.2d 515 . Moreover, there is no evidence here which would indicate in any way that the people in the house were in the process of destroying the drugs, or were even aware that a raid was imminent. The rationale for the clearly defined exception to the warrant requirement in cases of destruction of evidence is based on the need for quick action because the evidence is actually in the process of being destroyed or is about to be destroyed. Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 . What the State asks here would result in an extension of the exception far beyond the bounds of its rationale." 314 N.E.2d at 752 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Diggs v. State · Crabtree v. State““It is well established that a judicially issued search warrant is a condition precedent to a valid search and seizure except under a very few, narrowly drawn exceptions, where the exigencies of the situation mandate an immediate response. Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 . ‘Belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house, furnishes no justification for a search of that place without a warrant. And such searches are held unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.’ Agnello v. United States (1925), 269 U.S. 20, 33 , 46 S.Ct. 4, 6 , 70 L.Ed. 145 .””
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.