State v. Goodrich’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), State v. Slockbower (1979)
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 13 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 South Dakota v. Opperman · Cady v. Dombrowski · Cooper v. State of California · John Henry Hewett v. State of North Carolina, R. L. Turner, Warden, Central Prison, Jerry Ray Cassada v. State of North Carolina · State v. Boster
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.
“"[W]here police assumed custody of defendant's automobile for no legitimate purpose other than safekeeping, and where defendant had arranged for alternative means, not shown to be unreasonable, for the safeguarding of his property, impoundment of defendant's automobile was unreasonable and, therefore the concomitant inventory was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. . . . The sole remaining reason given in this case for impoundment and inventory . . . is the necessity of protecting the arrested individual's property from theft and the police from claims arising therefrom. But the defendant's assumption of responsibility for his property obviated that necessity in this case. . . . The State has not shown that the impoundment was a reasonable means of furthering a reasonable state purpose." 256 N.W.2d at 507, 511 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he mere fact that the automobile was not registered to defendant, in the absence of reason to believe that defendant was wrongfully in possession of it, does not render impoundment reasonable upon defendant’s unrelated arrest for “driving under the influence,” and despite defendant’s alternative arrangements for disposition of the automobile.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gauster“shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime or for any other purpose.”
1 later decision 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.