State v. Hayward’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 1978
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · State v. Siegel · Everhart v. State · Madison 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““THE COURT: Well, your motion is what, to quash the indictment? “MR. CARDIN [defense counsel]: May we approach the bench? “THE COURT: Yes, come on up. “(an off-the-record discussion was had by court and counsel.) “MR. CARDIN: If Your Honor please, the motion will be a motion to quash the indictment. “THE COURT: And that is based upon the contention that the indictment is based upon the search which was made as a result of the warrant and your contention is that the warrant is — that the application is wholly inadequate? “MR. CARDIN: That is correct, Your Honor. “MR. WILSON [State’s Attorney]: For the record the State will enter an objection based on reasons already stated. “THE COURT: All right. And I am going to grant the motion to quash the indictment....” 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hayward 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.