State v. Henning’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Davis v. United States (2011), Davis v. United States (2011)
59 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 · United States v. Ross · New York v. Belton · Michigan v. Long · Arizona v. Gant
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Chimel , we held that a search incident to arrest may only include ‘the arrestee’s person and the area “within his immediate control” — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.’ [Citation omitted.] That limitation, which continues to define the boundaries of the exception, ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. [Citation omitted.] If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply. [Citation omitted.]” Gant, 556 U.S. at 339 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We interpret Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights to provide the same protection from searches and seizures as the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution. See State v. Wood, 190 Kan. 778, 788 , 378 P.2d 536 [1963]. Thus, regardless of whether the statute is challenged under the federal or state Constitution, we consider ourselves bound by United States Supreme Court precedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Gilliland“only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.