Shipley v. California’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 12 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 298 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Chimel v. California (1969), Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
104 federal appellate · 12 district · 122 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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 Mapp v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello v. United States · Harris 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 298 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a search 'can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.' " Shipley v. California , 395 U.S. 818 , 819, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 2054, 23 L.Ed.2d 732 (1969) ( per curiam ), quoting Stoner v. California , 376 U.S. 483 , 486, 84 S.Ct. 889, 891, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964). As we noted in Shipley , "the Constitution has never been construed by this Court to allow the police, in the absence of an emergency, to arrest a person outside his home and then take him inside for the purpose of conducting a warrantless search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The search of the house and shed was in violation of California law, well established at the time of the incident [i.e., before Chimel ].... The subsequent search cannot be upheld on the ground that it was incident to the valid arrest of appellant. Appellant was arrested on the dirt road, not in the house or the shed which were later searched. The search was not limited to the premises where the arrest was made, nor was it contemporaneous with that arrest.”
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.