Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 Idaho 661 - State v. Emory

State v. Emory’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Atkinson (1996), State v. Barnard (2008)

26 state decisions

1601991200020102020decided

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 · United States v. Cortez · Delaware v. Prouse · State v. Montague · Matter of Griffiths

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

  1. “In this case, the officer relied upon his prior training which suggested that forty percent of all people who make a delayed response to a traffic signal are driving while under the influence of alcohol. However, such inferences must still be evaluated against the backdrop of everyday driving experience. It is self-evident that motorists often pause at a stop sign or traffic light when their attention is distracted or preoccupied by outside influences.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he suspicion for the stop must be based upon objective information available to the officer when he decided to make the stop, and cannot be bolstered by evidence gathered following the stop.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A traffic stop, which constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, must be supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion that the vehicle is being driven contrary to traffic laws or that either the vehicle or the occupant is subject to detention in connection with a violation of other laws. The reasonableness of the suspicion must be evaluated upon the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop. This reasonable suspicion standard requires less than probable cause, but more than speculation or instinct on the part of an officer.”
    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.