State v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Goode (1995), State v. McClendon (1999)
66 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 Terry v. Ohio · Simmons v. United States · Chimel v. California · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the police officer] observed defendant not simply in a general high crime area, but on a specific corner known for drug activity and as the scene of recent, multiple drug-related arrests.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“`specific and articulable facts' . . . that defendant was, or was about to be, engaged in criminal activity and that defendant was `armed and presently dangerous.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Officer Hedges obtained the gun purchase receipt and the statements on 11 October 1989 while on patrol as a uniformed officer assigned to a speciality drug unit in Tampa. Hedges and his partner saw defendant, an unfamiliar figure, standing with a group of people on a Tampa street corner known as a “drug hole,” an area frequented by drug dealers and users. Hedges had had the area under daily surveillance for several months. In the past six months, Hedges had made four to six arrests at the comer and knew that other arrests had occurred there. As Hedges and his partner approached the group, defendant and the officers made eye contact, at which point defendant immediately turned and walked away. Their suspicions raised, the officers followed defendant and asked him for identification. Defendant handed Hedges a Florida driver’s license. Before Hedges accepted the identification, he frisked defendant’s person. Hedges testified that he conducted the frisk in order to discover any weapons and for his own protection during the face-to-face encounter with a person he suspected of dmg activity.”
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.