Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1/2/1974
Stanley v. State
Citations
- 313 A.2d 847
- 19 Md. App. 507
- 1974 Md. App. LEXIS 496
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that the informant must “furnish the raw data of his senses, so that the reviewing judge could draw his own conclusion from the data”
- finding that the informant must “furnish the raw data of hi's senses, so that the reviewing judge could draw his own conclusion from the data”
- discussed in Gates, 462 U.S. at 229 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. at 2327 n. 4
- discussed in Gates, 462 U.S. at 229 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. at 2327 n. 4
- where informant satisfied Aguilar 's veracity prong with \flying colors.\
- where informant satisfied Aguilar’s veraci ty prong with “flying colors.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moylan, Powers, Gilbert
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
74 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 16,716×
- State v. NovembrinoSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1987-01-07· cited 387×
- State v. JacksonWashington Supreme Court· 1984-09-06· cited 294×
- State v. BartonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-07-16· cited 178×
- Eisenhauer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1988-03-23· cited 175×
- United States v. Terrell Lamont Bynum, A/K/A Boo, A/K/A Boo-Man Sumeka Plummer Iris JohnsonFourth Circuit· 2002-06-14· cited 124×
- Potts v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1984-08-22· cited 91×
- Lee v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-02-16· cited 83×
- State v. JonesAlaska Supreme Court· 1985-09-20· cited 81×
- People v. DiFalcoNew York Court of Appeals· 1993-02-25· cited 81×
- United States v. DorfmanN.D. Illinois· 1982-06-01· cited 78×
- State v. BuckleySupreme Court of Louisiana· 1983-01-10· cited 70×
- United States v. BushThird Circuit· 1981-03-24· cited 70×
- United States v. Glenston P. LawsD.C. Circuit· 1986-12-09· cited 59×
- Commonwealth v. Alfonso A.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2003-01-06· cited 58×
- Malcolm v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-12-01· cited 55×
- State v. GomezIdaho Supreme Court· 1980-12-09· cited 53×
- Beemer v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court· 1984-03-08· cited 47×
- United States v. Robert ButtonEighth Circuit· 1981-07-06· cited 42×
- People of Illinois v. GatesIllinois Supreme Court· 1981-06-26· cited 42×
Cites
47 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1971-06-21· cited 9,038×
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1925-11-26· cited 7,454×
- Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 7,289×
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 6,512×
- Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1969-01-27· cited 6,223×
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1949-10-10· cited 6,013×
- Beck v. OhioSupreme Court· 1964-11-23· cited 5,133×
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1960-03-28· cited 4,796×
- Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court· 1970-10-12· cited 4,391×
- United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court· 1965-03-01· cited 4,171×
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1957-03-25· cited 3,599×
- Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1959-01-26· cited 3,191×
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1963-06-10· cited 3,146×
- United States v. RabinowitzSupreme Court· 1950-02-20· cited 2,080×
- United States v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1971-06-28· cited 1,806×
- McCray v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1967-04-24· cited 1,521×
- Giordenello v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1958-06-30· cited 1,231×
- Rugendorf v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1964-05-18· cited 725×
- Nathanson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1933-11-06· cited 629×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.