State v. Padilla’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2023
17 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 Swafford v. State · State v. Rowell · State v. Smith · Torres v. State · State v. DeGraff
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer consists of a person willfully and carelessly driving his vehicle in a manner that endangers the life of another person after being given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle in pursuit in accordance with the provisions of the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a law enforcement officer may initiate a high speed pursuit to apprehend a suspect who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe poses a clear and immediate threat of death or serious injury to others or who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a clear and immediate threat to the safety of others that is ongoing and that existed prior to the high speed pursuit; (2) a law enforcement officer shall not initiate or continue a high speed pursuit when the immediate danger to the officer and the public created by the high speed pursuit exceeds the immediate danger to the public if the occupants of the motor vehicle being pursued remain at large; (3) when deciding whether to initiate or continue a high speed pursuit, the following factors, at a minimum, shall be taken into consideration: (a) The seriousness of the offense for which the high speed pursuit was initiated; (b) whether a suspect poses a clear and immediate threat of death or serious injury to others; (c) road, weather, environmental and vehicle conditions; (d) the amount of motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic; and (e) knowledge of the suspect's identity, possible destination and previous activities that may make apprehension at a later time feasible; and (4) no more than two law enforcement vehicles shall become actively involved in a high speed pursuit, unless specifically authorized by a supervisor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Padilla · State v. Ross“because the training and filing requirements of the Act do not directly mandate how police conduct a particular pursuit, we think those requirements are not included in the evaluation of whether a given pursuit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the [Act],”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ross
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.