Helen Frances Sutton Root v. Isabel H. Gauper’s Empirical Analysis
438 F.2d 361 · 1971
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Mincey v. Arizona (1978), Tierney ex rel. Newton v. Davidson (1998)
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Harris v. United States · McDonald 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]olice may enter a dwelling without a warrant to render emergency aid and assistance to a person whom they reasonably believe to be in distress and in need of that assistance.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carroll v. State · People v. Smith““For purposes of the instant case, the emergency or exigency doctrine may be stated as follows: police officers may enter a dwelling without a warrant to render emergency aid and assistance to a person whom they reasonably believe to be in distress and in need of that assistance. In applying this doctrine, two principles must be kept in mind. (1) Since the doctrine is an exception to the ordinary Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant for entry into a home, the burden of proof is on the state to show that the warrantless entry fell within the exception. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. [451] at 456, 69 S.Ct. 191 , [ 93 L.Ed. 153 ]; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951). (2) An objective standard as to the reasonableness of the officer’s belief must be applied. < * * * [i]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. * * * And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate?’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).” 438 F.2d 361 , 364-365.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.””
2 later decisions 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.