345 So. 2d 452 - State v. Linkletter’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards (1981), 350 So. 2d 168 - State v. Cobbs (1977)
56 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Gideon v. Wainwright · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Ventresca
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense, although not in the presence of the officer;....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information;'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"On a number of occasions this Court has made clear that the decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), while requiring the prosecution to inform the defendant of exculpatory evidence, does not require the State to open its files to the defendant to search and decide what is exculpatory. (Citations omitted). "These cases do not construe Brady v. Maryland to permit the defendant unlimited pretrial discovery. No fishing expedition is authorized by that decision and a pretrial in-camera inspection of the State's file is not required. However, the cases do understand Brady v. Maryland to hold, in effect, that the State must, upon request, furnish the defense with evidence which is material to the issues and favorable to the defense. And, if it can be shown that the State, after request, has deliberately withheld from the trial specific evidence favorable to the defense, the error would warrant reversal of the conviction. State v. Tyler, 342 So.2d 574 (La.1977)."”
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.