245 N.J. Super. 166 - State v. Foreshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably State v. Foreshaw (1991), State v. Zutic (1998)
32 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 Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Roviaro 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hether the evidence at that point [conclusion of prosecution's evidence] is sufficient to warrant a conviction of the charge involved. R.R. 3:7-6. More specifically, the question the trial judge must determine is whether, viewing the state's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the state the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. [ State v. Foreshaw, 245 N.J. Super. 166, 185 , 584 A. 2d 832 (App.Div. 1991), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 327 , 598 A. 2d 886 (1991) (citations omitted).]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Under the automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), "the police can stop and search a moving or readily movable vehicle when there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of criminality." State v. Welsh, 84 N.J. 346, 352 , 419 A. 2d 1123 (1980). See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390 , 105 S.Ct. 2066, 2068 , 85 L.Ed. 2d 406, 412 (1985); State v. Martin, 87 N.J. 561, 567 , 436 A. 2d 96 (1981). "This exception applies to situations involving parked and unoccupied vehicles encountered by police in public parking lots or on city streets as well as to moving vehicles stopped on the open highway." State v. Martin, supra, 87 N.J. at 567 , 436 A. 2d 96 . There are two reasons for the automobile exception. "`Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the exception of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.'" California v. Carney, supra, 471 U.S. at 391 , 105 S.Ct. at 2069 , 85 L.Ed. 2d at 413 . "Even in cases where an automobile [is] not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justifie[s] application of the vehicular exception." Id. Despite the breadth of the exception, "`[o]nly the prior approval of the magistrate is waived; the search otherwise [must be such] as the magistrate could authorize.'" California v. Carney”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Under both federal and state constitutional standards, information given by an informant whose inherent reliability has not been shown may nevertheless be used to establish probable cause to obtain a search warrant if the informant's veracity is bolstered by the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 237-238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983); State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 121-123 , 519 A. 2d 820 (1987). [ Ibid. ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.