State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 1991
24 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 Andresen v. Maryland · Dennis v. California · State v. Tanton · State v. Self · State v. Carlton
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the defendant received the stolen [property] . .. at a time different from the time that he received the [other stolen property] ..., then there were two offenses for which two sentences would be imposed even though at the time of discovery defendant possessed all the stolen property involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sanchez v. State · Sanchez v. State“There are situations where items not described in the affidavit and warrant may properly be seized. (Citations omitted) In Andresen v. Maryland, supra [ 427 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976)] the United States Supreme Court upheld the seizure of items not described in the warrant on the basis that the officers “reasonably could have believed” that the seized items could be used tc show defendant’s intent with respect to items seized pursuant to the warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. James
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.