State v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Burns (1999), State v. Ross (2001)
56 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 Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Ornelas 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he 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 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“People shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hayes · State v. Archibald“(a) Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction in the district where the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication is to occur, or in any district where jurisdiction exists to prosecute the underlying offense to support an intercept order under § 40-6-305. The application shall state the investigative or law enforcement officer’s authority to make the application and shall include the following information: (1)Identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the district attorney general authorizing the application; (2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that an order should be issued, including: (A) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; (B) A particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted; (C) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted; and (D) The identity of all persons, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be or may be intercepted; (3) A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely”
1 later decision 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.