State v. Bell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that hot pursuit and probable cause to search accompanied by the presence of exigent circumstances have each been recognized as exceptions to the search warrant requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Norris
  Ohio Court of Appeals· 2016-09-09· cited 15×
• State v. Lam
  Ohio Court of Appeals· 2013-02-15· cited 5×
• State v. Lam
  Ohio Court of Appeals· 2015-10-16· cited 3×

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Illinois v. Gates
  Supreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 16,716×
• Katz v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
• Payton v. New York
  Supreme Court· 1980-04-15· cited 7,618×
• Mincey v. Arizona
  Supreme Court· 1978-06-21· cited 3,849×
• State v. Foster
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2006-02-27· cited 3,571×
• Illinois v. Rodriguez
  Supreme Court· 1990-06-21· cited 2,581×
• Welsh v. Wisconsin
  Supreme Court· 1984-05-15· cited 1,874×
• State v. Mathis
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2006-02-27· cited 1,010×
• United States v. Karo
  Supreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 895×
• State v. George
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1989-09-27· cited 672×
• State v. Adams
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1988-07-06· cited 279×
• State v. Gross
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2002-10-30· cited 235×
• United States v. Levasseur
  E.D. New York· 1985-10-29· cited 21×