Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 Wash. 2d 706 - State v. Lair

95 Wash. 2d 706 - State v. Lair’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Horton v. California (1990), 106 Wash. 2d 54 - State v. Gunwall (1986)

83 state decisions

34019811990200020102020decided

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 Aguilar v. Texas · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Sedillo 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[E]ven if nothing is known about the informant, the facts and circumstances under which the information is furnished may reasonably support an inference that the informant was telling the truth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “considering the surrounding facts and circumstances, the police can reasonably conclude they have evidence before them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification—whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused—and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.”
    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.