State v. Binette’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly (2014), State v. Post (2007)
1 federal appellate · 67 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Ornelas v. United States · Sedillo v. United States
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Munn · State v. Troxell“In Binette , the review was de novo because the arresting officer did not testify at trial; however, there was a videotape of the incident. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that when a court's findings of fact at a suppression hearing are based solely on evidence that does not involve issues of credibility, such as a videotape, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is not implicated. Thus, a de novo standard of review was found to be appropriate; however, this holding was expressly limited to the facts presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether based upon the testimony of the officer, the State of Tennessee demonstrated that either a reasonable suspicion or probable cause existed that a crime was being committed by the defendant sufficient to justify the stop, search, and seizure of the defendant within his rights as protected by Article I Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and amendments IV and XIV of the Constitution of the United States.”
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.