State v. Cardenas-Alvarez’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably State v. Vandenberg (2003), State v. Leyva (2011)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 93 state decisions
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 Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · City of Indianapolis v. Edmond · State v. Gomez · State v. Attaway
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If the government seeks to rely on evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution, that evidence must have been obtained in a manner that comports with the protections given to the individual by article I, section 9,[ [18] ] of the Oregon Constitution. It does not matter where that evidence was obtained (in-state or out-of-state), or what governmental entity (local, state, federal, or out-of-state) obtained it; the constitutionally significant fact is that the Oregon government seeks to use the evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution. Where that is true, the Oregon constitutional protections apply. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Torres“no mandate in the text of [a]rticle II, [s]ection 10,[ [19] ] nor in [its] jurisprudence interpreting th[e] clause, to selectively protect New Mexico's inhabitants from intrusions committed by state but not federal governmental actors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Torres“[u]nlike the private actors[,] . . . federal agents exercise jurisdiction over New Mexicans and possess the authority to systematically subject [New Mexico] inhabitants to searches, seizures and other interferences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Torres
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.