Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 670 SW2D 184 - State v. Holzschuh

State v. Holzschuh’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
March 2007
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2007

13 state decisions

50198419902000decided

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 82 Ill. 2d 250 - People v. Flatt · 83 Ill. 2d 87 - People v. Phipps · 113 Ill. App. 3d 367 - People v. Johnson · 115 Ill. App. 3d 833 - People v. McQueen · State v. Little River Drainage District

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

  1. “5. The motion to suppress may be based upon any one or more of the following grounds: (1) That the search and seizure were made without lawful authority; (2) That the warrant was improper upon its face or was illegally issued, including the issuance of a warrant without proper showing of probable cause; (3) That the property seized was not that described in the warrant and that the officer was not otherwise lawfully privileged to seize the same; (4) That the warrant was illegally executed by the officer; (5) That in any other manner the search and seizure violated the rights of the movant under section 15 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, or the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “from any order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in . . . suppressing evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “was not meant to provide the state the right to appeal a mid-trial evidentiary ruling.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.