Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 727 P2D 188 - State v. Nielsen

State v. Nielsen’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2021

24 state decisions

6019861990200020102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Brinegar v. United States · Malley v. Briggs

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

  1. “a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the validity of a search warrant if the defendant can establish that (i) an affiant in an affidavit supporting a search warrant made a false statement intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and (ii) the affidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause after the misstatement is set aside.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the affidavit must be evaluated to determine if it will support a finding of probable cause when the omitted information is inserted.... [I]f the omission ... materially affects the finding of probable cause, any evidence obtained under the improperly issued warrant must be suppressed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[tjhere is no stronger argument for developing adequate remedies for violations of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures than the example of a police officer deliberately lying under oath in order to obtain a search warrant.”
    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.