Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 778 S.W.2d 430 - State v. Jacumin

State v. Jacumin’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
5
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Wright (1994), State v. Harris (1992)

3 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

5001989199020002010decided

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 · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Cortez

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

  1. “[T]he magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, ... was “credible” or his information “reliable.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Valentine
  2. “Article 1, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution precludes the issuance of warrants except upon”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Johnson
  3. “`[E]ach prong represents an independently important consideration that must be separately considered and satisfied in some way.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. State v. Luke · State v. Pully

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.