32 Wash. App. 555 - State v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2018
20 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. Ventresca · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Harris v. McRae · Gerry v. United States · United States v. Johnson
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rules of practicality, necessity and common sense.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The requirements of particularity are met if the substance to be seized is described with ` reasonable particularity ' which, in turn, is to be evaluated in light of `the rules of practicality, necessity and common sense.' State v. Withers, 8 Wash.App. 123, 126 , 504 P.2d 1151 (1972).... ".... "... [T]here was no reasonable likelihood that a violation of the defendant's rights would occur. The presence of marijuana in a private residence raises a legitimate inference that marijuana may be present throughout the residence.... Therefore, as a practical matter, the language used in the warrant in the present case could not have expanded the scope of a search for marijuana because, in searching for marijuana, the officers were authorized to inspect virtually every aspect of the premises. Any other contraband inadvertently found in the course of such lawful search would clearly be subject to seizure pursuant to the `plain view' doctrine."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Jenkins · State v. Reep“"[a] deputy sheriff applied for and obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the defendant's residence. The Affidavit for Search Warrant stated that a reliable confidential informant had ` seen a quantity of controlled substance to wit marijuana' therein. A search warrant was issued authorizing a search for ` all illicit drugs and controlled substances. ' Pursuant to the warrant, defendant's residence was searched and, as charged in the information, opium, cocaine and phenobarbital, all of which are controlled substances, were found therein."”
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.