Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 NW2D 756 - State v. Buschkopf

State v. Buschkopf’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2003

18 state decisions

100198519902000decided

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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Matlock · Mincey v. Arizona

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

  1. “Common authority is, of course, not to be implied from the mere property interest a third party has in the property. The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Generally, a conspiracy to conceal the commission of the charged crime may not be automatically implied to permit the use of hearsay statements made by co-conspirators.... [T]he court should analyze the facts of the case to determine if in fact there was an agreement to conceal, to determine the closeness in time of the concealment to the commission of the principal crime, and to determine the reliability of these statements.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. * * * The reviewing court must examine the circumstances before the trial court at the time the motion was made to determine whether the trial court’s decision prejudiced defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”
    1 later decision 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.