4 Md. App. 482 - Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 17 Md. App. 399 - Hignut v. State (1973), 11 Md. App. 694 - Dawson v. State (1971)
28 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Harris v. United States · Rugendorf 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the search warrant is issued for the basic purpose of making a search, the probable cause necessary to support its issuance requires a proper showing not only that a crime has been or is being committed, but also that the evidence of the crime is upon the person or within the place or thing to be searched. Salmon v. State, [2 Md. App. 513, 519, 235 A. 2d 758 (1967)]. See also Kist v. State, 4 Md. App. 282 ; Frey v. State, 3 Md. App. 38 .” Id. at 488-89.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. State““To justify the issuance of such a warrant, [§ 551(a) ] appears to require that probable cause first be shown that ‘any misdemeanor or felony’ is being committed ... and that in connection therewith ‘property’ subject or liable to seizure ‘under the criminal laws of this State’ is located upon the individual or at the place or thing to be searched.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kostelec v. State
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.