4 Smith & H. 538 - Seals v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2014
3 federal appellate · 15 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.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(5) It appears from the record that the search warrant contained an accurate description of the premises to be searched, but described the offender as ‘John Doe, alias/ notwithstanding the officer who procured the warrant knew the name of the plaintiff in error and was seeking to discover evidence of his guilt. The failure of the officer to cause the warrant to be issued against the plaintiff in error- by name is urged as a fatal defect.” “Since, in the case at bar, there was no search of the person of the plaintiff in error, but only a search of premises occupied by him, the search could not be declared unlawful or in violation of the constitutional rights of the owner, either because of the absence of his name in the warrant or because of an affirmative error in stating his name. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garner 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.