State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2024
9 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 Katz v. United States · California v. Greenwood · Litchfield v. State · State v. Hess · State v. Tofani
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A motion to suppress for an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right raises a question of law, requiring de novo review.” State v. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 9 , 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 (quoting State v. Herrmann, 2002 SD 119, ¶9 , 652 N.W.2d 725, 728 (citations omitted)); State v. Tofani, 2006 SD 63, ¶ 24 , 719 N.W.2d 391, 398 . Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Tofani, 2006 SD 63, ¶ 24 , 719 N.W.2d at 398 . Yet, “the application of a legal standard to those facts” is reviewed de novo. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 9 , 680 N.W.2d at 319 (citing State v. Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 12 , 631 N.W.2d 603, 607 (citation omitted)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Britton
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.