Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 N.M. 714 - State v. Ferrari

State v. Ferrari’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
5
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Rios (1979), State v. Manus (1979)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

160196919701980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio

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

  1. ““The appellant complains that the warrant itself was constitutionally defective because it was a general warrant authorizing a search for any item in five separate places relating to the death of an unknown individual whose body had been found at described location, and for specific items completely unrelated to any statement of fact in the affidavits. This contention must be rejected. A description in a warrant which does not name items seized but includes instruments of the crime is not so vague as to invalidate the search warrant. United States v. Robinson, 287 F. Supp. 245 , (N. D. Ind. 1968). Likewise, any item relating to the death is not so vague as to render the warrant invalid. . . .” (p. 718.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not prohibit every inquiry in response to volunteered statements where the arresting officer does not initiate the conversation”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “designed to elicit incriminating responses”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.