People v. Warner’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1994
5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to suppression is personal to the one whose right to privacy was violated. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); United States v. Cella, 568 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir. 1978); People v. Warner, 401 Mich. 186 , 258 N.W.2d 385 (1977). In this case, since Ms. Jock was the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jock“"The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself ...."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jock“person against whom the interception was directed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jock
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.