Guerra v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Lancaster v. State (2002), Hodges v. State (1995)
38 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
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Franks v. Delaware
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to issue a proper search warrant, a magistrate must have a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause exists. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause should be paid great deference. “[Article 1, § 4 of t]he Wyoming Constitution requires that a search warrant be issued only upon a showing of probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by an affidavit which supplies the issuing officer with sufficient information to make an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. The affidavit in support of the warrant, therefore, must include more than bare conclusions of the affiant. Facts which lead the affiant to believe that a warrant is justified must be presented in the affidavit. The test for determining the existence of probable cause is whether a factual situation is sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious or prudent man to believe that a crime was being committed or that one had been committed. This test requires that the issuing officer weigh and consider all of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a warrant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we do not interfere with the trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. . . . We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination because the trial court has an opportunity at the evidentiary hearing to assess `the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Fenton v. State · Fenton v. State“nature of the criminal activity, the length of the activity, and the nature of the property to be seized.”
2 later decisions 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.