Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 SW2D 948 - State v. Oberg

State v. Oberg’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2011

7 state decisions

301980199020002010decided

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 Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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

  1. “[W]hether a warrantless search is constitutionally inoffensive turns on the ‘concrete factual context of the individual case’. Si-bron v. State of New York, 392 U.S. 40, 59 , 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1901 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917, 932 (1968). The cardinal significance of the facts on a case to case basis cannot be minimized because all warrantless searches, subject only to certain well delineated fact oriented exceptions, are per se constitutionally offensive. (Citations omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he suppression of evidence resulting from unlawful searches is neither designed to frustrate those charged with the enforcement of our laws nor to shield the guilty. Doing so is nothing more or nothing less than judicial compliance with the positive mandate of the Fourth Amendment that all citizens, the guilty and innocent alike, shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizure.”
    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.