State v. Farber’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2012
17 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Trammel v. United States · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · Kilcullen v. United States · United States v. Lefkowitz
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statute precludes adverse spousal testimony in a ‘case.’ A search warrant proceeding, however, is independent of any criminal case. It is ex parte and nonadversary. Moreover, the warrant is an investigative aid. At common law the privilege did not prevent officers from obtaining information from one spouse to assist in the investigation of the other. * * * “ * * * Even though we must apply the statute in accordance with its terms, we will not extend it by construction. * * * Consequently, we hold it does not apply to an application for search warrant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No court in any reported decision appears to have held that a knock and announce statute incorporating the common law concept will bar a search when no one is present in the premises to be searched. Knock and announce statutes have uniformly been interpreted to allow forced entry when the resident is ab-senté]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buck · State v. Iverson“Force used in executing warrant Notice of authority prerequisite, when. When a search warrant has been issued authorizing entry into any building, room, conveyance, compartment or other enclosure, the officer executing the warrant may use such force as is reasonably necessary to enter: (1) If, after notice of his authority and purpose, there is no response or he is not admitted with reasonable promptness; or (2) Without notice of his authority and purpose, if the magistrate issuing the warrant directs in the warrant that the officer need not give notice. The magistrate shall so direct only upon proof, under oath, that the object of the search may be quickly destroyed, disposed of, or secreted, or that physical harm may result to any person if notice were given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buck
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.