State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably State v. Valdez (1999), State v. Mason (1999)
74 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 Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · Mincey v. Arizona · United States v. Robinson · Youngberg v. Romeo ex rel. Romeo
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Sec. 8. K.S.A. 22-2501, as repealed by 2006 Senate Bill No. 366, is hereby revived and amended to read as follows: 22-2501. When a lawful arrest is effected a law enforcement officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person’s immediate presence for the purpose of (a) Protecting the officer from attack; (b) Preventing the person from escaping; or (c) Discovering the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the a crime.” L. 2006, ch. 211, sec. 8.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Conn · State v. Daniel““If the findings of the trial court on a motion to suppress evidence are based on substantial evidence, this court on review will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the trial court. State v. Chiles, 226 Kan. 140, 144 , 595 P.2d 1130 (1979). When the facts material to a decision of the court on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress becomes a question of law. State v. Vandiver, 19 Kan. App. 2d 786, 788 , 876 P.2d 205 (1994), aff’d 257 Kan. 53 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). An appellate court’s scope of review on questions of law is unlimited. State v. Heffelman, 256 Kan. 384, 386 , 886 P.2d 823 (1994). Further, on a motion to suppress evidence, the State bears the burden of proving to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure. State v. Damm, 246 Kan. 220, 222 , 787 P.2d 1185 (1990) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390-91 , 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 (1978]).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a lawful arrest is effected a law enforcement officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person’s immediate presence for the purpose of “(a) Protecting the officer from attack; “(b) Preventing the person from escaping; or “(c) Discovering the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime.” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 22-2501.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dennis
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.