McCutcheon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2010
11 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. The officers’ presence must be proper. “2. The items observed must appear to the officer to be possible evidence. “3. Attention must be paid to Justice Stewart’s plurality expression that the ‘plain view’ doctrine is applicable only to the inadvertent discovery of incriminating evidence.” (Footnote omitted and emphasis in original.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kish v. State · McDermott v. State““ ‘1. Does the plain view doctrine excuse the search of Appellant’s vehicle? “ ‘2. Does a police Officer “search” a vehicle when he walks up a private driveway, peers into the vehicle, and visually examines the contents thereof?’ ” 604 P.2d at 540 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCutcheon 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.