Case Citator › Mincey v. Arizona

Mincey v. Arizona

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
67 of 75 flagged citations read · 89.3%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
437 U.S. 385
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
67 of 75
Citing cases (total)
3,676
Treatment dates
1980–1997
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Mincey v. Arizona has been limited, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. Of 75 flagged citations, 67 have been read; the text of 8 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so review remains open.
More on how this was screened

Texas courts held Mincey's rejection of the homicide scene exception nonretroactive and applied that temporal limit to an earlier search. Other opinions applied Mincey's warrant and emergency rules or discussed different cases.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,676 later cases cite Mincey v. Arizona; 75 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Mincey v. Arizona?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court applied its holding that Mincey's rejection of the homicide scene exception is nonretroactive, admitting evidence seized and tried before Mincey was decided.

    Montelongo v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed

    This rule was abolished by the United States Supreme Court in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), which this Court has held is not retroactive. Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Because both the search and the trial took place before the decision in Mincey, when Brown was still the law, the trial court did not err in admitting the handle of the fishing rod.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court applied the former homicide scene exception to a search conducted before Mincey, confining Mincey's contrary rule by the search date.

    Celani v. State · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District · filed

    Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393, 98 S.Ct. at 2413. Moreover, at the time the Celani home was searched and the challenged evidence seized, “the common law ‘exigency rule’ allowed ... homicide scene investigations” under the “murder scene exception.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mincey v. Arizona and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace