397 So. 2d 1308 - State v. Nicholas’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 404 So. 2d 466 - State v. Lindsey (1981), 433 So. 2d 73 - State v. Neslo (1983)
44 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is an exception to the warrant requirement. In order to be applicable, there must have been a prior justification for an intrusion into a protected area, in the course of which evidence was discovered inadvertently, or an officer must have inadvertently observed evidence of the crime from a vantage point without intrusion upon a protected area, and it must have been readily apparent or there must have been a reasonable probability without close inspection that the items were evidence or contraband. When an officer observes evidence of a crime in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) The witness’ degree of attention; 3) The accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; 4) The witness’ level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and, 5) The time between the crime and the confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. James“[C]ounsel makes no allegation that the trial court otherwise curtailed voir dire, and the restriction here, standing alone, does not appear to deprive defendant of his right to full voir dire under LSA-Const., Art. 1 Sec. 17... If there was error, therefore it essentially was harmless error. 397 So.2d at 1317 .”
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.