Nicholas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Texas v. Brown (1983), Vanderbilt v. State (1981)
2 federal appellate · 80 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
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the improper admission of evidence over objection is rendered harmless by the unobject-ed-to admission of other evidence of substantially the same facts; whereas, the introduction of evidence seeking to meet, destroy, or explain the erroneously admitted evidence does not render the error harmless. The rationale should be equally clear: if a fact be proven without objection, its erroneous proof over objection, although still error, is harmless error since the same facts have been proven without objection. On the other hand, presentation of other evidence which does not prove those facts erroneously admitted, but only tends to meet, destroy, or explain the erroneously admitted evidence, can hardly be considered to cure the error within the rationale of the first rule....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the instant case, the officers had, prior to examining the negatives, neither knowledge nor mere suspicion of an offense related to the film. What was in “plain view” in the apartment was not evidence of any crime or criminal behavior. It was not contraband or fruits or instrumentalities of any offense about which they knew or suspected upon entering the apartment. The officers did not inadvertently come across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The negatives were not incriminating until after the officers had examined them. Thus, it was not “immediately apparent” to the officers that they had evidence before them. (Citation and footnotes omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Howard v. State · Foreman v. State““In its discussion of the ‘plain view’ doctrine in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 1 supra, the Supreme Court said it must be ‘immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them;’ . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Howard v. State · DeLao v. State
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.