Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 Neb. 319 - State v. Colgrove

State v. Colgrove’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2025

10 state decisions

40197719801990200020102020decided

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 · Mapp v. Ohio · Ker v. State of California · Henry 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he undisputed facts in this case show that the actions of the defendant and his companions gave no reasonable ground to suspect, nor did the officers have information of any kind which could reasonably lead them to any conclusion that the occupants of the Colgrove car were committing, or were about to commit, or had committed any crime. Neither were the officers in the process of any criminal investigation which might have made it reasonable to make inquiry of the car’s occupants. In short, there was nothing in the circumstances or within the officers’ knowledge, as demonstrated by the record, which gave any ground whatever for an investigatory stop”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““When the officers stopped their own cars they became aware that there were three males in the car and no women.... The officers acknowledged that they had observed no violations oflarv by the driver of the car or its occupants. Neither the car nor its occupants had done anything to arouse the suspicion of the officers. Neither were the officers investigating any crime which would give them occasion to make an investigatory stop of [defendant’s] vehicle.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hen it became apparent that the persons for whom the officers were looking were not in the [defendant’s] car[,] that vehicle should have been permitted to proceed,”
    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.