State v. Foreman’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 1997
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The argument that the police believed they had valid consent to search the premises would be more persuasive had they asked the presumed consenting party to unlock the door rather than taking the door off its hinges to gain entry.... The requirement of a search warrant is intended to protect all from unreasonable searches. The present case highlights the importance of obtaining a warrant when In the present case, first hand possible. information concerning the activities in the subject room was obtainable with a minimal police investigation. The police already suspected illegal gaming in the room, having received several tips. There were numerous customers and workers at the Bingo Plaza that had access to the room and were familiar with the activities therein. An undercover agent could have obtained access with little apparent difficulty. The prudent steps of obtaining a warrant would have prevented the illegal search problem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Foreman
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.