State v. Yaw’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 107 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Kennedy (1986), State v. Bishop (2009)
26 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Harris · United States v. Carmichael · United States v. Larry C. Smith, Etc., United States of America v. Marshall Carter, Etc.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observation of the af-fiant, . . . the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, . . . was “credible” or his information “reliable.” [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kanda“[w]here the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts are capable of supporting a finding of probable cause, the district court's decision to issue a search warrant will be upheld even though other inferences from those facts may support a different conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Safadago
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.