Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 N.M. 777 - State v. Gomez

State v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

501
cited by 501 later decisions
9
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

12 district · 489 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 501 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 221 Ill. 2d 282 - People v. Caballes (2006), State v. Coffin (1999)

12 district · 489 state decisions

23001997200020102020decided

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 Carroll v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · United States v. Ross · United States v. Chadwick · Ohio v. Robinette

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

  1. “Under the interstitial approach, the court asks first whether the right being asserted is protected under the federal constitution. If it is, then the state constitutional claim is not reached. If it is not, then the state constitution is examined.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hen a party asserts a state constitutional right that has not been interpreted differently than its federal analog, a party also must assert in the trial court that the state constitutional provision at issue should be interpreted more expansively than the federal counterpart and provide reasons for interpreting the state provision differently from the federal provision.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “`an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.