Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 OHIOST2D 50 - State v. Waldbillig

State v. Waldbillig’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 1984
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1984

5 state decisions

20196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Because the automobile was searched without a warrant and was not searched at the time that defendant and its other occupants had been arrested and before they had been taken to the police station, the Supreme Court of the United States requires a state court to suppress as evidence all the items found as a result of that search. See Preston v. United States (1964), 376 U. S. 364 , 11 L. Ed. (2d) 777, 84 S. Ct. 881 ; Stoner v. California (1964), 376 U. S. 483 , 11 L Ed. (2d) 856, 84 S. Ct. 889 . Cf; Ker v. California (1963), 374 U. S. 23 , 10 L. Ed (2d) 726, 83 S. Ct. 1623 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.