Commonwealth v. Labron’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996), Werts v. Vaughn (2000)
3 federal appellate · 33 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 Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney · Sedillo v. United States · Steagald 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[f]or constitutional purposes, [there is] no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“this Commonwealth’s jurisprudence of the automobile exception has long required both the existence of probable cause and the presence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search. Furthermore, we have consistently recognized that when police have advance information that a particular vehicle carrying evidence of a crime would be situated at a particular locale, such that sufficient time exists to obtain a warrant, the failure of the police to secure a warrant prior to searching the vehicle will render the search unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n considering the reasonableness of a given search or seizure of an automobile, the need for a warrant is often excused by exigent circumstances. The reasons are two-fold. First, a vehicle is highly mobile and the likelihood is therefore great that it and its contents may never be found if police were prohibited from immobilizing it until a warrant can be secured. Second, one’s expectation of privacy with respect to an automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.