Vance v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2013
7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 25th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Leon · Roviaro v. United States · First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson · Maryland & Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc. · Huff v. Commonwealth
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our sister States who have passed on this identical question have uniformly held in well-reasoned opinions that the actual signature is not essential. State v. Roubion, 378 So.2d 411, 413 (La.1979); Commonwealth v. Young, 6 Mass.App. 953 , 383 N.E.2d 515, 517 (1978); State v. Higgins, 266 N.C. 589 , 146 S.E.2d 681, 684 (1966); Huff v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 710 , 194 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1973). Nothing in the United States Constitution or the statutes or Constitution of the State of Texas requires an affiant to sign his name to a search warrant affidavit. It is the oath of the affiant that solemnizes his affidavit. If the affiant is sufficiently identified in the body of the affidavit or in the jurat, his signature is not necessary to the validity of the affidavit. Custom dictates that the far better practice, of course, is that it be signed by the affiant.” Vance v. State, 759 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.App.1988) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gannaway“No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its issuance. A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause shall be filed in every instance in which a search warrant is requested. The affidavit is public information if executed, and the magistrate’s clerk shab make a copy of the affidavit avabable for pubbe inspection in the clerk’s office during normal business hours.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunter v. State“The people shab be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shab issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunter v. State
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.