Love v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 19th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3117 (§ 108 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Jacobsen · Smith v. Maryland · United States v. Miller
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daniel v. State“We consider such things as the nature of the error, the extent to which it was emphasized by the State, its probable collateral implications, and the weight a juror would probably place on the error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daniel 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.