Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 779 So. 2d 113 - State v. Adams

779 So. 2d 113 - State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Rogers v. United States · State v. Duncan · 484 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fraser

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

  1. “|9Making a material and intentional misrepresentation to a magistrate involves a fraud upon the courts and will result in the invalidation of the warrant and suppression of the items seized. State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Brown, 93-2089 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/16/94) , 647 So.2d 1250 , writ den. 95-0497 (La.12/6/96), 684 So.2d 921 . “Intentional” means a deliberate act designed to deceive the issuing magistrate. State v. Lamartiniere, 362 So.2d 526 (La.1978); State v. Ceasar, 97-1506 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/24/97) , 700 So.2d 242 . However, if the misrepresentations or omissions are inadvertent, the warrant will be retested for probable cause after supplying that which had been omitted or striking that which had been misrepresented. State v. Lingle, 436 So.2d 456 (La.1983).”
    2 later decisions 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.