Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 WASH2D 347 - State v. Thorn

State v. Thorn’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably State v. O'NEILL (2003), State v. Armenta (1997)

31 state decisions

220199620002010decided

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. Mendenhall · Florida v. Bostick · Bumper v. North Carolina · California v. Hodari D.

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

  1. “`The resolution by a trial court of differing accounts of the circumstances surrounding the encounter are factual findings entitled to great deference,' but `the ultimate determination of whether those facts constitute a seizure is one of law and is reviewed de novo.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “when restrained by means of physical force or a show of authority,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A person is "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.... There is a "seizure" when, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
    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.