Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 Md. 526 - Morton v. State

Morton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Lockhart v. Nelson (1988), State v. Wood (1980)

2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

26019791980199020002010decided

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 · Chimel v. California · Brown v. Illinois · Hester v. United States · Mancusi v. DeForte

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.

  1. “an arrest is the taking, seizing or detaining of the person of another, inter alia, by any act that indicates an intention to take him into custody and that subjects him to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whether property has been ‘abandoned is generally a question of fact based upon evidence of a combination of act and intent.’ Intention is a prime factor in considering whether there has been an abandonment; it is to be ascertained from what the actor said and did since intent, although subjective, is determined from objective facts at hand.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"We think the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the jacket and plastic bag while he was inside the recreation center, and that nothing which he said or did evidenced an intent to abandon his protected privacy interest in these belongings. We hold that the appellant’s fourth amendment claim to privacy from governmental intrusion was reasonable and that the search of the jacket and plastic bag was unlawful.””
    1 later decision 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.