Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 Ariz. App. 7 - State v. Taras

19 Ariz. App. 7 - State v. Taras’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
9
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably 27 Cal. 4th 60 - People v. Arturo D. (2002), State v. Johns (1987)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions

2501972198019902000decided

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 · Carroll v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Preston v. United States · Harris 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime. [Citation omitted]’ [ 17 Ariz.App. 441 ] 498 P.2d [515] at 522 We believe that the above test should apply not only to a situation such as in 1Saltier, but also to force stops of vehicles.” 19 Ariz.App. at 10, 504 P.2d at 551 (Footnote omitted)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * due regard for the practical necessities of effective law enforcement requires that the validity of brief, informal detention be recognized whenever it appears from the totality of the circumstances that the detaining officers could have had reasonable grounds for their action. A founded suspicion is all that is necessary, some basis from which the court can determine that the detention was not arbitrary or harassing.””
    2 later decisions 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.