State v. Broadway’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Laime v. State (2001), Cummings v. State (2003)
2 federal appellate · 39 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Except as hereafter provided, the search warrant shall provide that it be executed between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m., and within a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty (60) days. Upon a finding by the issuing judicial officer of reasonable cause to believe that: (i)the place to be searched is difficult of easy access; or (ii) the objects to be seized are in danger of imminent removal; or (iii) the warrant can only be safely or successfully executed at nighttime under circumstances the occurrence of which is difficult to predict with accuracy; the issuing judicial officer may, by appropriate provision in the warrant, authorize its execution at any time, day or night , and within a reasonable time not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Garner v. State · Townsend v. State“An affidavit should speak in factual and not mere conclusory language. It is the function of the judicial officer, before whom the proceedings are held, to make an independent and neutral determination based upon facts, not conclusions, justifying an intrusion into one’s home.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garner v. State · Townsend v. State“(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, such evidence would have been discovered; and (vii) the extent to which the violation prejudiced moving party's ability to support his motion, or to defend himself in proceedings in which such evidence is sought to be offered in evidence against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jackson 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.