Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 SD 48 - State v. Labine

State v. Labine’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2021

13 state decisions

60200720102020decided

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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Calandra

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

  1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The specific findings of fact and conclusions supersede the memorandum and articulate the trial court’s final and determinative thoughts.... It is settled law that we do not review the trial court’s memorandum opinion unless the same is expressly incorporated in the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Since the memorandum was not incorporated, and cannot be used, our review is limited to the findings of facts and conclusions of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “we review the circuit court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, [and] we give no deference to its conclusions of law [.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re HLS

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.