Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 675 SO2D 268 - State v. Varnado

State v. Varnado’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
5
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2018

19 state decisions

90199620002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · United States v. Ventresca · Illinois v. Rodriguez · Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

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

  1. “Id., 468 U.S. at 907 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. at 3412 ... Accordingly,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In many cases, the nature of the crime may make it appropriate to assume that the fruits and instrumentalities of the offense are probably stored in the suspect's residence.... 'Where the object of the search is a weapon used in the crime or clothing worn at the time of the crime, the inference that items are at the offender's residence is especially compelling.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Vamado court recognized that the police had probable cause to search the defendant’s residence. But, sounding a now familiar chord, the court found “a critical omission in the warrant application,” because it failed “to identify the targeted premises as the defendant’s residence. ” Id. at 270. Nonetheless, because the exclusionary rule is intended to deter police misconduct, not to punish the mistakes of judges, the court concluded that, “under the particular circumstances of this case, application of the exclusionary rule would serve no remedial purpose.” Id. The court reasoned that “[t]he officer had no apparent purpose for omitting the information linking the defendant to the residence ....” Id. at 271. Indeed, the court believed that another officer in the same position “would not have noticed the defect____” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.