Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 309 Ark. 211 - Butler v. State

Butler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Stanton v. Sims (2013), Stone v. State (2002)

29 state decisions

2101992200020102020decided

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 Payton v. New York · Johnson v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Welsh v. Wisconsin · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

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

  1. “Exigent circumstances are those requiring immediate aid or action, and, while there is no definite list of what constitutes exigent circumstances, several established examples include the risk of removal dr destruction of evidence, danger to the lives of police officers or others, and the hot pursuit of a suspect. In the present case, murder had been committed, clearly a most grave offense. Since the victims were shot and no murder weapon was immediately apparent at the crime scene, the officers had good reason to believe that the suspect was armed and dangerous. Additionally, Bozarth and Dinwiddle testified that they heard gunshots at about 3:35 a.m., and Caperton testified that they arrived at the residence at 4:21 a.m., less than an hour after the shootings. As discussed above, the officers had strong probable cause to believe that Humphrey was the perpetrator. Dinwiddle also knew that Humphrey lived with his grandmother, giving the officers a strong reason to suspect that Humphrey was in the premises being entered. Under these particular facts, we conclude that sufficient exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless entry into the home, even if [the suspect’s grandmother] did not consent to the entry.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “even though Officer Sudduth might have been under the impression that he was in continuous pursuit of Butler for what he considered to be the crime of disorderly conduct, ... since the crime is a minor offense, under these circumstances there is no exigent circumstance that would allow Officer Sudduth's warrantless entry into Butler's home for what is concededly, at most, a petty disturbance”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t is axiomatic that the 'physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.'”
    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.