Ostrowski v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Swingler (1985), 549 So. 2d 1316 - Gray v. State (1989)
2 federal appellate · 54 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Brinegar v. United States · Hamling v. United States · New York v. Belton · Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the facts and circumstances within the peace officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information * * * sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious or prudent man to believe that the person arrested has committed * * * an offense (emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Eckenrod v. State · Lee v. State“must include facts sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent and cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed and that there is evidence of the crime at the place to be searched.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Guerra v. State · Davis v. State““INSTRUCTION NO. 10 “The necessary elements of the crime of aggravated burglary are: "1. The crime occurred within the county of Laramie on or about the date of January 1, 1985; and “2. The defendant, Delbert Anthony ■ McDonald, entered an occupied structure; and “3. The entry was made without authority of the owner or occupant; and “4. The defendant entered with the intent to commit an aggravated assault; and “5. In the course of committing the act the defendant knowingly or recklessly inflicted bodily injury on Viola Ann Salazar. “If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty. “If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty.” “INSTRUCTION NO. 11 “To constitute the crime charged there must be a union of two essential elements, an act forbidden by law and a specific intent. “Specific intent means more than the general intent to commit the act. To prove a crime which involves specific intent, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: “(1) That the defendant did the act charged; and “(2) That he did it with the specific intent described in the crime charged. The specific intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as any other fact in the ease.” “INSTRUCTION NO. 21 “Delbert McDonald, the defe”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baier v. State · McDonald 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.