Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 So. 2d 740 - State v. Warren

283 So. 2d 740 - State v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1994

20 state decisions

140197319801990decided

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 Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Draper v. United States · Ker v. State of California

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

  1. “Arrest is the taking of one person into custody by another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint of the person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Reasonable belief—or `probable cause' as it is termed under the federal standard—to make an arrest without a warrant exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a felony has been or is being committed. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); State v. Green, 244 La. 80 , 150 So.2d 571 (1963); State v. Aias, 243 La. 945 , 149 So.2d 400 (1963); State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993 , 149 So.2d 417 (1963). "Compliance with these standards is, in the first instance, a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case. Ker v. State of California, 374 U. S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); State v. McIlvaine, 247 La. 747 , 174 So.2d 515 (1965). "And in determining compliance with these standards it is not the proof required for conviction which concerns us. Proof required to satisfy the requirement of reasonable belief or probable cause is less and is what the terms imply: probabilities and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable men could reasonably be expected to act. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); State v. Bourg, 248 La. 844 , 182 So.2d 510 (1966)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when: . . . . . . "(3) The peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense although not in the presence of the officer; ...."”
    2 later decisions 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.