State v. Oquendo’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 district · 334 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 336 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Reynolds (2003), State v. Hines (1998)
2 district · 334 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 · Mapp v. Ohio · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez
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 336 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution permit a police officer in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner to detain an individual for investigative purposes even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. State v. Mitchell, [ 204 Conn. 187 , 195 , 527 A.2d 1168 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927 , 108 S.Ct. 293 , 98 L.Ed.2d 252 (1987)]; State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172 , 184 , 579 A.2d 484 (1990). In determining whether the detention was justified in a given case, a court must consider if [b]ased upon the whole picture the detaining officers [had] a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. State v. Scully, 195 Conn. 668 , 674 , 490 A.2d 984 (1985), quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 417-18 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). A court reviewing the legality of a stop must therefore examine the specific information available to the police officer at the time of the initial intrusion and any rational inferences to be derived therefrom. See State v. Braxton, 196 Conn. 685 , 689 , 495 A.2d 273 (1985). These standards, which mirror those set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, [ 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)], with regard to fourth amendment analysis, govern the legality of investigatory detentions under article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution. State v. Lamme, supra [184]; State v. Scully, supra, 674-”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a person is seized only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have . . . defined a person as seized under our state constitution when by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. . . . In determining the threshold question of whether there has been a seizure, we examine the effect of the police conduct at the time of the alleged seizure, applying an objective standard. Under our state constitution, a person is seized only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. . . . Therefore, [w]hether there has been a seizure in an individual case is a question of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.