Liming v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably State v. Brown (1992), State v. Barkmeyer (2008)
26 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 Carroll v. United States · Weeks v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Preston v. United States · Agnello v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to presumptions, it is settled law that while they may be indulged in criminal cases, this cannot be done to deprive the defendant of the presumption of innocence as was done in this case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““However, this is not determinative of this issue in defendant’s favor. We are of opinion, as was the trial judge, that the search was valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. And the fact the arrest was for a misdemeanor or a violation of a city ordinance does not alter the case. “Our leading case on arrest is Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn. 544 , 238 S.W. 588 , 20 A.L.R. 639 . There it is stated: “ ‘An officer making an arrest has authority to search the person of his prisoner, even against his will; but a search is justifiable only as an incident to a lawful arrest, and if the arrest is unlawful the search is also unlawful. Thus an officer acting without a warrant for an arrest and without attempting to make an arrest is not justified in making a search of a person upon mere suspicion that he has committed a crime. The officer making an arrest and search of the person of the prisoner may take from him any dangerous weapons, or anything else that he reasonably may deem necessary to his own or the public safety, or for the safe-keeping of the prisoner, and take into his possession the instruments of the crime and such other articles as may be of use as evidence on the trial, or which might enable the prisoner to escape.’ 145 Tenn. 566 -567, 238 S.W. 588 , 594. ⅜ ‡ ‡ ⅜ ijc ⅜ “In all of our cases the question of the validity of the incidental search has turned on the common law basis of the right to search in connection with an arrest as stated in Hughes v. State, as that rule has ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vaughn v. State
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.