People v. Tate

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the same reasoning applied to the resolution of the independent source doctrine also applies to the inevitable discovery rule
• concluding that the inevitable discovery exception did not apply where the knock and announce rule required the suppression of the seized evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Price v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2002-11-27· cited 32×
• State v. Lee
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2003-04-23· cited 18×
• Kellom v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-06-18· cited 6×
• Carroll v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2003-02-28· cited 6×
• Price, Gilbert Colman v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2002-11-27

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Apprendi v. New Jersey
  Supreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
• United States v. Leon
  Supreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 9,230×
• Nix v. Williams
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,080×
• Segura v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1984-07-05· cited 1,569×
• Murray v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-27· cited 1,424×
• Illinois v. Krull
  Supreme Court· 1987-03-09· cited 1,170×
• Wilson v. Arkansas
  Supreme Court· 1995-05-22· cited 925×
• People v. Krueger
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1996-12-19· cited 177×
• United States v. Robert Dice,defendant-Appellee
  Sixth Circuit· 2000-01-06· cited 96×
• United States v. Steven Lester Marts Pamela Sue Marts
  Eighth Circuit· 1993-05-17· cited 88×
• People v. Wright
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1998-06-18· cited 59×
• United States v. Robert R. Haddix
  Sixth Circuit· 2001-02-09· cited 48×
• United States v. Espinoza
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2000-07-13· cited 6×