State v. Graf’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably McCoy v. North Dakota Department of Transportation (2014), State v. Skarsgard (2007)
35 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Payton v. New York · Brown v. Illinois · 38 Cal. 4th 412 - People v. Boyer · United States v. Shaibu
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court’s findings of fact in preliminary proceedings of a criminal case will not be reversed if, after the conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We do not conduct a de novo review. We evaluate the evidence presented to see, based on the standard of review, if it supports the findings of fact.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“Consent is one exception to the warrant requirement,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torkelsen
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.