Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2020
8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Berger v. New York · United States v. White · United States v. District Court · United States v. Donovan
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e recognize that in most cases involving [Glass warrants], compelling reasons will exist to postpone service of an inventory, or notice that a warrant has been executed, upon the subject of the warrant.... [I]mmediate disclosure of [police informants’] identity would severely jeopardize their safety and impair investigatory efforts in other cases. Moreover, in many eases, the interests of effective law en forcement might require that substantial follow-up investigation occur after the monitored [conversation]_ A strict requirement that an inventory be served upon the defendant at the time his conversation is monitored would obviously render potential follow-up investigation ineffective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Steffensen 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.