State v. Maristany’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Brown (2001), State v. Suazo (1993)
1 federal appellate · 53 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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Delaware v. Prouse · United States v. Matlock
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]onsent may be obtained from the person whose property is to be searched, see Schneckloth, supra, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed. 2d 854 (1973), from a third party who possesses common authority over the property, see United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed. 2d 242 (1974), or from a third party whom the police reasonably believe has authority to consent, see Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 , 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed. 2d 148 (1990). [ Id. at 305, 627 A. 2d 1069 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Those provisions impose a standard of reasonableness on the exercise of discretion by government officials to protect persons against arbitrary invasions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there was nothing to alert [the officer] that both, none, or only one of the bags belonged to [the driver]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harding · State v. Sawyer
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.