Jeffrey Thurman v. Cowles Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that purse on table immediately in front of visitor was not in visitor’s possession
• noting that purse \not worn\ therefore not \an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person\
• holding that a visitor’s purse on a coffee table was within the scope of the premises warrant because the purse “was not being ‘worn’ by appellee and thus did not constitute an extension of her person”
• holding that the search of the visitor’s purse was covered by the warrant because it was not being worn by the visitor and thus did not constitute “an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person”
• holding that the search of the visitor’s purse was covered by the warrant because it was not being worn by the visitor and thus did not constitute “an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person”
• holding that the search of the visitor’s purse was covered by the warrant because it was not being worn by the visitor and thus did not constitute “an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).