Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 456 SW2D 38 - State v. Gott

State v. Gott’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1999

13 state decisions

60197019801990decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In Ellison v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C.1, 206 F.2d 476 , the police officers sought to question the defendant concerning a burglary, and while on the front porch of his house saw some bottles of medicine and some cigarettes near the house in the yard which had been taken from a drugstore in the burglary. It was held: The `officers were perfectly entitled to go to appellant's door, ring the bell, and inquire as to his whereabouts. They were not trespassers in so doing. Nor were they guilty of any impropriety in allowing their eyes to wander while they were waiting on the porch.... There was no intrusion into appellant's privacy. Nor did mere observation constitute a "search." If an officer sees the fruits of crime or what he has good reason to believe to be the fruits of crime—lying freely exposed on a suspect's property, he is not required to look the other way, or disregard the evidence his senses bring him.' ... [W]hen a police officer enters upon land in the performance of his duties and observes incriminating evidence, it is not the result of a search, let alone an illegal one, and ...' a police officer entering upon the land in performance of his lawful duty is a licensee ... the license being conferred by the law.'"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If an officer sees the fruits of crime or what he has good reason to believe to be the fruits of crime—lying freely exposed on a suspect's property, he is not required to look the other way, or disregard the evidence his senses bring him.' ... [W]hen a police officer enters upon land in the performance of his duties and observes incriminating evidence, it is not the result of a search, let alone an illegal one, and ...' a police officer entering upon the land in performance of his lawful duty is a licensee ... the license being conferred by the law.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.