Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Wash. 2d 509 - State v. Klinker

85 Wash. 2d 509 - State v. Klinker’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
5
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 98 Wash. 2d 276 - Matter of Harris (1982), 104 Wash. 2d 142 - State v. Santos (1985)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions

18019751980199020002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Fuentes v. Shevin

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

  1. “Probable cause `boils down, in criminal situations, to a simple determination of whether the relevant official, police or judicial, could reasonably believe that the person to be arrested has committed the crime.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[D]ue process requires a hearing before property is seized, and that that hearing must either include notice and the opportunity to appear being given the person subjected to the seizure or must involve an ex parte finding by a judicial officer of a right to and a special need for summary seizure or attachment subject to prompt later contest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.