Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Stevens

123 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably California v. Greenwood (1988), 115 Wash. 2d 571 - State v. Boland (1990)

55 state decisions — followed in 11 states

20019851990200020102020decided

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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Brown v. Ohio · Bumper v. North Carolina · Smith v. Maryland

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

  1. “are either separated in time or are significantly different in nature.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Article 1, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: Searches and seizures. Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not. be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (Marijuana) (THC).”
    2 later decisions 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.