State v. Monsrud’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2012
7 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. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Scott v. United States · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · United States v. Giordano · Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire, oral or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty days. * * * Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in thirty days.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quinn“The warrant shall contain the grounds for its issuance with findings as to the existence of the matters contained in subdivision 1 and shall also specify: * * * (e) the period of time during which such interception is authorized, * * * (h) * * * and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in ten days * * * Subd. 5. Duration of warrant. No warrant entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire, electronic, or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than ten days.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quinn“the applicant's authority to make such application”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'Hara v. People
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.