United States v. Callabrass’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. “On the facts of this case, we do not believe that a warrant was necessary for the early morning re-entries on January 22. As the fire was being extinguished, Chief See and his assistants began their investigation, but visibility was severely hindered by darkness, steam, and smoke. Thus they departed at 4 a.m. and returned shortly after daylight to continue their investigation. Little purpose would have been served by their remaining in the building, excépt to remove any doubt about the legality of the warrantless search and seizure later that same morning. Under these circumstances, we find that the morning entries were no more than an actual continuation of the first, and the lack of a warrant thus did not invalidate the resulting seizure of evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Urban

2. “[t]he exigency in the case at bar was not only limited to the ephemeral nature of the evidence. There was also a need to dispose of the dangerous chemicals quickly so as to render the premises safe.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 159 Wis. 2d 99 - State v. Milashoski

3. “We do not see, however, how Cassidy's subjective intention controls the question of whether there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. State