504 So. 2d 1194 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2012
20 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 Illinois v. Gates · Massachusetts v. Upton · 435 So. 2d 674 - Lee v. State · 463 So. 2d 1087 - Hester v. State · 472 So. 2d 373 - Breckenridge v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the `veracity' and `basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kerns v. State · Pittman v. State“[t]his Court does not make a de novo determination of probable cause, but only determines if there was a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination of probable cause.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Buggs v. State · Foley v. State“of persons supplying hearsay information. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). We adopted the Gates”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Foley 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.