Madden v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Wilson v. State (1975), Houser v. State (1997)
58 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 Spinelli v. United States · Rohlfing v. State · Ingram v. State · McCurry v. State · Ferry 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Recognizing the dangers inherent in hearsay ... the Legislature incorporated specific requirements into the statute to assure that the hearsay constituting the probable cause was credible in the mind of the issuing authority and not merely in the mind of the affiant. These requirements are specific and simple and were designed to assure that the determination of eredi-bility can and will be that of the issuing authority, made independently of the judgment of the affiant, The goal is that warrants be issued only upon probable cause, shown preferably by facts but in any event by information that is believed to be reliable. The determination of probable cause 'cannot be made without first determining the likelihood of correctness of such information, and this determination must also be made by the issuing authority rather than merely by the affiant."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nash v. State · Baker v. State“(a) [N]o warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with the judge an affidavit: (1) Particularly describing: (A) The house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for; or (B) Particularly describing the person to be arrested; (2) Alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that: (A) The things as are to be searched for are there concealed; or (B) The person to be arrested committed the offense; and (3)Setting forth the facts then in knowledge of the affiant or information based on hearsay, constituting the probable cause. (b) When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either: (1) Contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or (2) Contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"the affidavit was ... deficient in that it disclosed no information from which its credibility could be assessed. Who reported [the burglary]? How did such informer know of it? Is there reason to accept the informer's statements as correct? Did the informer observe it, hear about it from another, imagine it or fabricate it? ..."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doss 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.