Saldana v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably O'BOYLE v. State (2005), Lancaster v. State (2002)
2 federal appellate · 79 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (§ 303 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2519 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3121 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3122 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Rakas v. Illinois · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An interpretation of the evidence by a witness, even though that interpretation may be important in establishing an element of the crime and thus leading to the inference of guilt, is not in the same category as an actual conclusional statement on the guilt or innocence of the accused party.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Almada v. State · Vasquez v. State“[The standard] is this court's assessment as to whether all of the evidence presented is “adequate to support a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the finder of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.” * * * We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury in applying this rule, and our only duty is to determine if a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result the jury actually did.”
4 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.