State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Thompson (2007), Gannon v. State (2014)
2 federal appellate · 87 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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Sokolow · Illinois v. Wardlow
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"this court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court's decision for substantial competent evidence and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts de novo. The ultimate determination of the suppression of evidence is a legal question requiring independent appellate review. [Citation omitted.] The State bears the burden to demonstrate that a challenged search or seizure was lawful. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344, 349 , 154 P.3d 1 (2007).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JME · State v. Bates““We do not advocate a total, or substantial, deference to law enforcement’s opinion concerning the presence of reasonable suspicion. The officers may possess nothing more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion’ or ‘hunch ‘ of criminal activity. [Citation omitted.] Such a level of deference would be an abdication of our role to make a de novo determination of reasonable suspicion.” State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344, 359-60 , 154 P.3d 1 (2007).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones · State v. Flack“" `While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification.... [Citation omitted.] The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch' " of criminal activity. [Citation omitted.]' Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 , 145 L.Ed.2d 570 , 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)." Moore, 283 Kan. at 354-55 , 154 P.3d 1 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Johnson
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.