Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 N.J. 632 - State v. Carty

State v. Carty’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
16
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Elders (2007), State v. Rankin (2004)

102 state decisions — followed in 16 states

800200220102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Whren v. United States

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

  1. “a consent [to] search following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle cannot be deemed valid . . . unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that the motorist or a passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]o avoid confusion in attempts to overextend our holding in this case in light of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we wish to make clear the limitations of this opinion. This decision does not affect the principles enunciated in various state and federal cases that allow roadblocks, checkpoints and the like based on a concern for the public safety. [Carty, supra, 170 N.J. at 652 , 790 A.2d 903 .]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that despite use of the first-tell-then-ask rule or the voluntary and knowing standard adopted in Johnson , consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops are either not voluntary because people feel compelled to consent for various reasons, or are not reasonable because of the detention associated with obtaining and executing the consent search. [Id. at 646, 790 A.2d 903 .]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.