Garner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Jegley v. Picado (2002), State v. Brown (2004)
50 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 United States v. Leon · Hall v. State · State v. Broadway · State v. Martinez
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) the place to be searched is difficult of speedy 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 or under circumstances the occurrence of which is difficult to predict with accuracy.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Where the officers misled the issuing judge with information they knew was false or would have known as false, except for reckless disregard of the truth. 2. Where the issuing judge abandons the judicial role of neutrality and detachment and becomes an adjunct law enforcement officer. 3. Where the officers’ affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief as to its existence unreasonable. 4. Where the search warrant is facially deficient in faffing to identify the places to be searched or things to be seized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tyson · Kelley v. State“We have consistently held that a factual basis supporting a nighttime search is required as a prerequisite to the issuance of a warrant authorizing a nighttime search. . . . We have held conclusory language . . . unsupported by facts is insufficient to justify a nighttime search. . . . Given that there was nothing to give reasonable cause to believe the items specified in the search warrant would be disposed of, removed, or hidden before the next morning, issuance of the nighttime search warrant was in error.”
2 later decisions 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.