Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Md. 262 - Shipley v. State

Shipley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
9
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 403 So. 2d 349 - Ensor v. State (1981), Little v. State (1984)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

2001966197019801990200020102020decided

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 Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · James Edwards, Jr. v. State of South Carolina · Schowgurow v. State · Busby v. United States · Cornish v. State

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

  1. “By a recognized test a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life, but absolute invisibility is not required; since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It has long been recognized that in an appropriate environment and under appropriate circumstances if it is reasonably necessary to enable a police officer to determine whether a person’s conduct is unlawful, he may accost or stop that person and in the process may seek the citizen’s identity and his cooperation and may verify the information given him.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.