State v. Paul

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that nighttime search was justified because affidavit alleging that strong odor of burnt marijuana was emanating from residence supported an inference that marijuana was being consumed and thereby being destroyed
• “[I]n the affidavit there must be sufficient facts showing that the public interest requires nighttime service.”
• affiant’s statement that he smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the residence in the afternoon supported an inference that marijuana was being consumed and thus destroyed
• affiant's statement that he smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the residence in the afternoon supported an inference that marijuana was being consumed and thus destroyed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Peters
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2001-03-16· cited 49×
• State v. Rowe
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1991-02-08· cited 30×
• State v. Moore
  Nebraska Court of Appeals· 1993-11-09· cited 26×
• State v. Richardson
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1995-10-10· cited 13×
• State v. Fitch
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1998-07-24· cited 13×
• State v. Ramirez
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2008-01-25· cited 10×
• State v. Flemming
  Nebraska Court of Appeals· 1992-03-24· cited 3×

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Mardian
  California Court of Appeal· 1975-04-09· cited 91×
• Henry v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1977-04-21· cited 18×