Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 Ark. 100 - Perry v. State

Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
6
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

2 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Bost v. State (2008), State v. Brown (2015)

2 district · 33 state decisions

210199020002010decided

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 Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Mendenhall · Davis v. Mississippi · Scroggins v. State · Burks v. State

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

  1. “[a] local peace officer acting without a warrant outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction under which he holds office is without official power to apprehend an offender, unless he is authorized to do so by state statute”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The State of Arkansas has authorized local police officers to act outside their territorial jurisdiction in four instances: (1) the well known “fresh pursuit doctrine” which is codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-301 (1987); (2) when the peace officer has a warrant of arrest, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-105 (1987); (3) when a local law enforcement agency requests an outside officer to come within the local jurisdiction, and the outside officer is from an agency which has a written policy regulating its officers when they act outside its jurisdiction, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-106 (1989); and (4) a county sheriff may request that a peace officer from a contiguous county come into the requesting sheriff’s county. The visiting officer may then come into that county and investigate and make arrests for violations of drug laws. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-705 (1987).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The traditional concept of territorial jurisdiction for peace officers is a sound one since a local community is best served by the requirement that local officers familiar with local neighborhoods make arrests in the community. People v. Hamilton, 666 P.2d 152 (Colo. 1983). If such a concept were not followed a Pocahontas policeman could make an arrest in Paragould, a Texas Ranger could make an arrest in Fordyce, and a K.G.B. agent could make an arrest in Fort Smith. Such a “practice would lead to more violence than it would suppress.” McCaslin v. McCord, 116 Tenn. 690 , 94 S.W. 79 (1906).”
    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.