State v. Kaseman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 state decisions

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing the affidavits, we should not invalidate the search warrants by interpreting the affidavits in a hypertechnical manner; rather, we should read each affidavit as a whole and interpret each in a common-sense and realistic manner. State v. Gerber, 1976, S.D., 241 N.W.2d 720 ; State v. Haron, 1974, 88 S.D. 397 , 220 N.W.2d 829 ; United States v. Ventresca, 1965, 380 U.S. 102 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 . Oftentimes it is hard to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, and the resolution of these marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants. State v. Kietzke, 1971, 85 S.D. 502 , 186 N.W.2d 551 . Accordingly, every reasonable inference possible should be drawn in order to support the determination of probable cause by the magistrate. State v. Glidden, 1976, S.D., 246 N.W.2d 779 . See also, Spinelli v. United States, 1969, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wellner · State v. Smith

2. ““that there is a violation in respect to some property located on some premises, or on some person, «which can be identified expressly or by reasonable inference from the information given in the affidavit so as to be capable of being particularly described in the warrant.” 273 N.W.2d 716 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Clark · State v. Dubois

3. “[Pjhotographs are admissible into evidence “when they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in his own words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description of objects or conditions and relevant to some material issue.” Photographs are not inadmissible simply due to the fact that the details of the crime are vividly brought to the jury’s attention or because they “incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.” Like any other demonstrative evidence, the admission of photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rash