State v. Pederson’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably State v. Dessureault (1969), State v. Smith (1979)
2 federal appellate · 97 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio · Draper v. United States · Ker v. State of California
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This Court has long held that possession of stolen goods, if unexplained, is a circumstance from which the jury might infer the guilt of a defendant, but that this circumstance, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P. 1101 ; Allen v. State, 26 Ariz. 317 , 225 P. 332 . As we read the subject instruction, it appears to state the law correctly for in effect the instruction says that if defendants had wished to remove the effect of possession of stolen goods from the facts and circumstances to be considered by the jury, defendants should have offered some explanation of their possession of such goods." State v. Pederson, 102 Ariz. 60, 68 , 424 P.2d 810, 818 (1967).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * The existence of probable cause is determined by application of an objective rather than a subjective standard. [citation] Probable cause exists ‘ * * * where “the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that” an offense has been or is being committed.’ Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 35 , 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1630 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 .” 104 Ariz. 380, 386 , 453 P.2d 951, 957 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““We are not aware of any constitutional principle which requires an arresting officer to personally verify every bit of information which he possesses, in order to have probable cause for a warrantless arrest.” 102 Ariz. at 65 , 424 P.2d at 815.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Everett · State v. Morris
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.