Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 ND 77 - State v. DeCoteau

State v. DeCoteau’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably City of Jamestown v. Jerome (2002), State v. Graf (2006)

48 state decisions

2501999200020102020decided

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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Payton v. New York · Ornelas v. United States · Cady v. Dombrowski · Welsh v. Wisconsin

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

  1. ““A de novo standard of review is applied to the ultimate determination of whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances....” [United States v. Cooper, 168 F.3d 336 ,] 339 [ (8th Cir.1999) ]. This is similar to our review of probable cause. See State v. Kitchen, 1997 ND 241, ¶¶ 12-13 , 572 N.W.2d 106 (we defer to a trial court’s findings of fact in the disposition of a motion to suppress, but whether findings of fact meet a legal standard is a question of law which .is fully reviewable).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the consent, and (2) the details of the setting in which the consent was obtained.”
    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.