Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 P2D 907 - State v. Sears

State v. Sears’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
13
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Payne v. Robinson (1988), Stephan v. State (1985)

2 federal appellate · 56 state decisions — followed in 13 states

300197619801990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mapp v. Ohio

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

  1. “We can conceive of circumstances which would lead to the application of the exclusionary rule to revocation of probation proceedings. E.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). In short, police misconduct which shocks the conscience, or is of a nature that calls for the judiciary, as a matter of judicial integrity, to disassociate itself from benefits derivable therefrom, would lead us to invoke the exclusionary rule.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`The majority adopt the reasoning of Justice Connor in Dimmick v. State, [ 473 P.2d at 625 ,] that it is important that the government obey the law as well as enforce it and by excluding otherwise probative evidence official misconduct is deterred.'”
    3 later decisions 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.