Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 F.2d 474 - Phillip Shorey v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary

Phillip Shorey v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1982 · most notably Street v. Surdyka (1974), Marshall v. United States (1970)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

220196819701980decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mapp v. Ohio · Escobedo v. Illinois · Beck v. State of Ohio · Johnson v. State of New Jersey

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The existence of “probable cause” is to be determined by the application of a practical, not a technical, standard. The meaning of the phrase has been so frequently stated as to require little elaboration here. Probable cause is something more than mere suspicion and something less than evidence which would justify a conviction. The essence of all definitions of probable cause for arrest is reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed it. ****** No single litmus-paper test will provide the answer when probable cause is at issue; we look instead to the totality of the circumstances. And the pertinent circumstances are those of the moment, the actual ones, the ones that confronted the arresting officers. Officers patrolling the street at night do not prearrange the setting and they cannot judge events in the calm of an office. Things just happen, and as they happen the officers must choose to act or not. Our inquiry is whether their action was that of reasonable and prudent police officers in view of the circumstances as they appeared at the time of arrest, [emphasis added; footnotes and citations omitted].”
    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.