Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 Mo. 348 - State v. Owens

State v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 105 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably Elkins v. United States (1960), Olmstead v. United States (1928)

6 federal appellate · 105 state decisions — followed in 16 states

260192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Burdeau v. McDowell · Gouled v. United States · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey

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

  1. “The State argues further that the constitutional provision is not self-enforcing, and no statute has been passed to punish an offending officer or provide a remedy to the person injured for the infraction of his constitutional right. It is true there is no adequate remedy available to the person injured whereby he may obtain redress after the act. He would have an action for an unlawful trespass or for assault, at common law. The Constitution adds nothing to his rights in that respect. The only remedy which can possibly benefit him is a preventive one . . . . *Page 211 "There is in fact no remedy, no method, by which the citizen can receive the protection of the Constitution except the method here contended for by the appellant. No case is mentioned, and I believe none can be found, where this constitutional right was protected to the citizen except in the suppression of evidence discovered by unlawful search.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is in fact no remedy, no method, by which the citizen can receive the protection of the Constitution except the method here contended for by the appellant. No case is mentioned, and I believe none can be found, where this constitutional right was protected to the citizen except in the suppression of evidence discovered by unlawful search.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The discovery of evidence of the offense (contraband property) occurs in exactly the same way. The fact that the defendant had no right to the liquor, that it is already forfeited to the State as contraband, does not affect the quality of the evidence .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.