Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 N.W.2d 92 - State v. Olson

State v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Minnesota v. Olson (1990), State v. Guevara (1998)

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1601989199020002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Ker v. State of California

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.

  1. “`a warrantless intrusion may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or imminent destruction of evidence [citation], or the need to prevent a suspect's escape, or the risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(a) whether a grave or violent offense is involved; (b) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (c) whether there is strong probable cause connecting the suspect to the offense; (d) whether police have strong reason to believe the suspect is on the premises; (e) whether it is likely the suspect 'will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (f) whether peaceable entry was made.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The police knew that Louanne and Julie were with the suspect in the upstairs duplex with no suggestion of danger to them. Three or four Minneapolis police squads surrounded the house. The time was 3 p.m., Sunday. . . . It was evident the suspect was going nowhere. If he came out of the house he would have been promptly apprehended.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.