Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 Ohio App. 3d 149 - State v. Phillips

155 Ohio App. 3d 149 - State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably State v. Lawson (2009), Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. MDL Active Duration Fund, Ltd. (2007)

36 state decisions

220200320102020decided

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 · Whren v. United States · Minnesota v. Dickerson · City of Dayton v. Erickson · 93 Ohio App. 3d 586 - State v. Retherford

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

  1. “The point of that inquiry is whether the officer was `justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer and others.' Id ., at p. 24. If that justification exists, the officer may reasonably conduct a pat-down search for weapons. `And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch', but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.' Id ., at p. 27. {¶ 18} "Intertwined with the reasonableness requirement is the companion requirement of Terry that the officer's suspicion must be `articulable.' That connotes more than a mere subjective pronouncement. It requires demonstrable facts which, together with any rational inferences that may be drawn from them, reasonably support a conclusion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. The conclusion is necessary to the independent judicial review that a Fourth Amendment challenge to a pat-down search involves.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Intertwined with the reasonableness requirement is the companion requirement of Terry that the officer's suspicion must be `articulable.' That connotes more than a mere subjective pronouncement. It requires demonstrable facts which, together with any rational inferences that may be drawn from them, reasonably support a conclusion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. The conclusion is necessary to the independent judicial review that a Fourth Amendment challenge to a pat-down search involves.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “exception. In Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), 508 U.S. 366 , 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 , the United States Supreme Court recognized a”
    1 later decision 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.