Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 Wis. 2d 203 - State v. Goebel

103 Wis. 2d 203 - State v. Goebel’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably State v. Kramer (2009), 139 Wis. 2d 663 - State v. Guzy (1987)

46 state decisions

2001981199020002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'not only authorized, but constitute[s] an important duty of law enforcement officers.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is clear that there are several investigative techniques which may be utilized effectively in the course of a Terry-type stop. The most common is interrogation, which may include both a request for identification and inquiry concerning the suspicious conduct of the person detained. Sometimes the officer will communicate with others, either police or private citizens, in an effort to verify the explanation tendered or to confirm the identification or determine whether a person of that identity is otherwise wanted. Or, the suspect may be detained while it is determined if in fact an offense has occurred in the area, a process which might involve checking certain premises, locating and examining objects abandoned by the suspect, or talking with other people. If it is known that an offense has occurred in the area, the suspect may be viewed by witnesses to the crime. There is no reason to conclude that any investigative methods of the type just listed are inherently objectionable; . they might cast doubt upon the reasonableness of the detention, however, if their use makes the period of detention unduly long or involves moving the suspect to another locale.” 3 La-Fave, Search and Seizure sec. 9.2, at 36-37 (1978).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime. [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.