Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 Beeler 277 - Robertson v. State

Robertson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
9
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably United States v. Williams (1963), Morgan v. Town of Heidelberg (1963)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 69 state decisions

3501947195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cox v. State · Craven v. State

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

  1. ““In the case of misdemeanors, of which the offense charged in this case is an instance, an officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a public offense committed or a breach of the peace threatened in his presence. With this exception, an officer has no right to arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. He has no right to make a search without a warrant except where he had made a lawful arrest; then the search of the person of the offender may follow. There was no search warrant in this case, and the matter turns upon the evidence procured by the officers as a result of their stopping the car of the defendants.” 184 Tenn. pp. 282, 283, 198 S.W.2d p. 635.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* *■ * * * * * * * One of the few exceptions of the law relating to arrests without a warrant is the authority of highway patrol officers to stop a car and demand to see the license of the operator. * * * Others than [s]tate [h] ighway patrolmen may not demand to see the license, unless the operator then or immediately, [sic] prior has been engaged in a violation of an ordinance or a statute. * * * [T]his authority should be exercised in good faith and all sincerity and if exercised as a pretext or subterfuge for a search, it is an unlawful exercise of that authority and constitutes an unlawful arrest. * * *”
    1 later decision 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.