Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 SW3D 311 - Corea v. State

Corea v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 174th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Matlock · Bumper v. North Carolina · Illinois v. Rodriguez · Berger v. New York

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

  1. “The apparent authority doctrine for consenting to a search should not be applied so strictly that it becomes unworkable and places too heavy a burden on police. The rule, however, does not allow law enforcement officers to proceed without inquiry into ambiguous circumstances or to always accept at face value the consenting party's apparent assumption or claim of authority to allow the contemplated search.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “because the State did not sustain its burden to establish that [the brother-in-law] had actual or apparent authority to consent to the search.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “obligated to investigate further to determine if [the brother-in-law] truly had the authority to consent to a search of the bedroom.”
    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.