548 So. 2d 846 - State v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
September 2009
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Ross · Scott v. United States · Alford v. Florida · Walz v. Tax Commission
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[ Where the purpose of the search is to find specific property, it should be so particularly described as to preclude the possibility of seizing any other. On the other hand, if the purpose be to seize, not specified property, but any property of a specified character, which, by reason of its character and of the place where and the cireumstances under which it may be found, if found at all, would be illicit, a description, save as to such character, place, and cireumstances, would be unnee-essary and, ordinarily, impossible; as, for instance, where the search is ordered for dies for the counterfeiting of money, or for opium, or gambling devices, or lottery tickets, or intoxicating liquors, alleged to be held in possession unlawfully, and the same is true though the illegality may consist in the intended use rather than the mere possession of the property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor 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.