State v. Manzella’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2015
19 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 350 So. 2d 168 - State v. Cobbs · State v. Korman · 354 So. 2d 563 - State v. Petta · 337 So. 2d 1111 - State v. Alexander
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.
“|7In the case before us, unlike Petta [State v. Petta, 354 So.2d 563 (La.1978)] and Alexander [State v. Alexander, 337 So.2d 1111 (La.1976)], we have a warrant for an actual address. Unlike the warrant in Korman, this warrant is not for the only complex apartment bearing the described number although naming the wrong building of the complex. Indeed, police were informed that defendant Manzella lived in the very apartment they sought to search and their information was erroneous. [Emphasis added.] The apartment which was searched by the police was not “particularly described” in the warrant. In fact, another apartment, not defendant’s, was so particularly described. The description employed would not have prevented the search of the wrong premises; rather, the description would have facilitated the search of the wrong premises. That 6176 Pontchartrain was not searched was due to the lucky happenstance that defendant’s sister answered the bell at 6176 Pontchartrain Boulevard and informed police that defendant lived at 6178 rather than 6176.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The description contained in the search warrant is adequate if it is sufficiently detailed so as to allow the officers to locate the property with reasonable certainty and with reasonable probability that they will not search the wrong premises. This court has held that a minor error in a portion of the description of the premises to be searched does not invalidate the search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant's apartment was located in the other part of the house and was joined with 6176 Pontchartrain Boulevard by a common patio. This court held that the search warrant did not describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity, and upheld the suppression of the evidence found in the search of the defendant's apartment. The court stated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.