Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 480 U.S. 79 - Maryland v. Garrison

Maryland v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

1,881
cited by 1,881 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
43
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

537 federal appellate · 175 district · 533 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,881 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Graham v. Connor (1989), SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. (2001)

537 federal appellate · 175 district · 533 state decisions — followed in 43 states

567019871990200020102020decided

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 · Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Payton v. New York

Cited together with United States v. Leon · Illinois v. Gates · Franks v. Delaware · Payton v. New York · Steele v. United States No. 1

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 1,881 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.”
    139 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the premises known as 2036 Park Avenue third floor apartment.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`The test for determining whether the description in the warrant is sufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement [of the Fourth Amendment] is whether `the description is such that the officers can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the [items] intended [to be seized].''”
    10 later decisions 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.