Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 SD 79 - State v. Haar

State v. Haar’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2020

24 state decisions

180200920102020decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Sokolow

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

  1. “The critical question is, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure ... warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate? Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that `might well elude an untrained person.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re HLS
  3. “`particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    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.