Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 Kan. 402 - State v. Ramirez

State v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
2
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Porting (2006), State v. Anderson (2006)

83 state decisions

470200420102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Arvizu · United States v. Watson

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

  1. “'Probable cause is the reasonable belief that a specific crime has been committed and that the defendant committed the crime. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Kansas has previously recognized several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement: consent; search incident to a lawful arrest; stop and frisk; probable cause to search accompanied by exigent circumstances, of which hot pursuit is one example; tire emergency doctrine; inventory searches; plain view; and administrative searches of closely regulated businesses.’ ” State v. Mendez, 275 Kan. 412, 421 , 66 P.3d 811 (2003) (quoting State v. Baughman, 29 Kan. App. 2d 812, 814 , 32 P.3d 199 [2001]).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “rather than evaluating each suspicious factor in isolation and asking whether there was an innocent explanation for the activity”
    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.