192 W. Va. 428 - State v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 196 W. Va. 588 - Muscatell v. Cline (1996), 193 W. Va. 51 - State v. Honaker (1994)
3 federal appellate · 101 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 · Illinois v. Gates · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. Cortez · Adams v. Williams
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On appeal, legal conclusions made with regard to suppression determinations are reviewed de novo. Factual determinations upon which these legal conclusions are based are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. In addition, factual findings based, at least in part, on determinations of witness credibility are accorded great deference.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“When evaluating whether or not particular facts establish reasonable suspicion, one must examine the totality of the circumstances, which includes both the quantity and quality of the information known by the police.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although “[reasonable] suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,” see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1989), the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 6 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution nevertheless require that the police articulate facts which provide some minimal, objective justification for the stop. Specifically, in Sokolow , the Court stated: “The officer, of course, must be able to articulate something more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch”’_ The Fourth Amendment requires ‘some minimal level of objective justification’ for making the stop.” 490 U.S. at 7 , 109 S.Ct. at 1585 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 10 . (Citations omitted). The criteria for reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle are very similar to a street stop under Terry. Factors such as erratic or evasive driving, the appearance of the vehicle or its occupants, the area where the erratic or evasive driving takes place, and the experience of the police officers are significant in determining reasonable suspicion.”
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.