State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2021
21 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Mapp v. Ohio · Florida v. Royer
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.
“"If the government seeks to rely on evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution, that evidence must have been obtained in a manner that comports with the protections given to the individual by article I, section 9,[ [18] ] of the Oregon Constitution. It does not matter where that evidence was obtained (in-state or out-of-state), or what governmental entity (local, state, federal, or out-of-state) obtained it; the constitutionally significant fact is that the Oregon government seeks to use the evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution. Where that is true, the Oregon constitutional protections apply. "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Snyder“consented to the search that uncovered the guns, and that consent was not obtained by exploitation of the unlawful conduct[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Torres“the administrative arrest warrant was not supported by oath or affirmation, as required by the Oregon and United States Constitutions, that the arrest was therefore unlawful, and that the guns and statements should be suppressed as the `fruit' of the unlawful arrest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torres · State v. Torres
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.