Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 341 F.2d 96 - Breen v. Beto

Breen v. Beto’s Empirical Analysis

341 F.2d 96 · 1965

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
February 1978
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Jackson v. Denno · Rochin v. People of California · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Michelson v. United States

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

  1. ““ * * * we are of the firm view that that case [Lane, supra] was not well decided and that the correct view of the law is otherwise.” id. at 97.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whereas, a complaint on oath and in writing, in accordance with law, has this day been made before me alleging that the premises described as a two story frame house painted white located at 1720 Buena Vista, the apartment to be searched being the upstairs apartment on the west side of the house, and known as 1720 Buena Vista, and any and all outhouses, garages, edifices, structures, openings and enclosures, and any and all automobiles or trucks found parked afor in front of 1720 Buena Vista, in the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, and being the premises under the control of a_ unknown Latin American Male whose name, age, and description are unknown— is a place where Narcotic Drugs and Narcotic Paraphernalia are unlawfully possessed in violation of The Uniform Narcotic Drug act, being Article 725b of Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code, of the State of Texas. “You are therefore hereby commanded to enter immediately and search the above described premises for such Narcotic Drugs and Narcotic Paraphernalia unlawfully possessed in violation of the uniform Narcotic Drug act, being Article 725b of Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code, State of Texas, and to take possession of same, and you are further commanded to arrest the said Unknown Latin American Male whose name, ag, and description are unknown who are alleged to be the person or persons in charge of said premises, and to arrest all other parties found in said premises or making their escape therefrom, and immediately take the ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Though the jury in this State assesses all punishment, except in those cases where the punishment is fixed by law, this Court has in the Salinas, Pitcock and McDonald cases, supra, approved the practice of permitting the accused to stipulate as to the prior convictions and thereby relieve the State of the necessity of reading to the jury that portion of the indictment which charges them and adducing proof before the jury of such prior convictions.” Salinas v. State, 365 S. W. 2d 362 ; Pitcock v. State, 367 S. W. 2d 864 ; McDonald v. State, 385 S. W. 2d 253 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.