670 So. 2d 515 - State v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3122 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · California v. Hodari D. · Vandygriff v. Phillips
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.
“In any event, `sealing' for purposes of the identical federal requirement has been described as the process wherein the government attorney obtains `a sealing order simply by presenting the appropriate papers and tapes to the supervising judge. Other than gathering the tapes, putting them in boxes and taking the tapes to the supervising judge, the record discloses no other necessary steps to sealing.' United States v. Carson, 969 F.2d 1480, 1489 (3rd Cir.1992). See also United States v. Quintero, 38 F.3d 1317, 1330 (3rd Cir.1994) ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Richardson
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.