68 Wis. 2d 614 - State v. Elam’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably 76 Wis. 2d 457 - Bies v. State (1977), 218 Wis. 2d 180 - State v. Phillips (1998)
28 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 Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Romano v. United States · 55 Wis. 2d 597 - State v. Pires
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Thus the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” The exceptions are “jealously and carefully drawn,” and there must be “a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.” ’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“after the execution of the search warrant — prescribed in Wis. Stat. § 968.17 (2). Id. at 618-19 . The trial court suppressed the evidence because the transcript was not filed until more than ten months after the execution of the warrant, even though it found the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay. Id. at 619 . This court reversed, saying:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Popenhagen“[Wisconsin Stat. § 968.22], together with the finding of no prejudice to the defendant ... would dispose of the issue.. .. The time for filing... is ... a ministerial duty, a violation of which does not invalidate the search absent prejudice to the rights of the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Popenhagen
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.