Woolbright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably MacKool v. State (2006), White v. State (2006)
40 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 Gray v. Maryland · 4 Cal. 4th 1233 - People v. Cummings · Grillot v. State · Berna v. State · Davis 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Detective Reese searched the room and seized a pair of jeans. ... With Mr. Johnson’s consent, Detective Sutton seized a pocket knife____ At the police station, Mr. Johnson was taken to a work cubicle for questioning. Detective Reese noticed that his wristwatch appeared to have a red stain on it and [he] seized it. Another officer later seized Mr. Johnson’s boots [and other items of clothing]. Thereafter, Ms. Woolbright came to the police station and gave a statement implicating Mr .Johnson in the murder. At this point, Mr. Johnson was taken into custody and placed under arrest. Officer Daniel Grubbs secured Mr. Johnson while the other officers went ... to search for the victim’s body. During a routine pat-down search, the officer seized a set of keys.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State“We have recently addressed the propriety of the “knock-and-talk” procedure under the protections of the Arkansas Constitution. See State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460 , 156 S.W.3d 722 (2004). In that case, we held that a home dweller must be advised of his or her right to refuse consent in order to validate a consensual search under the Arkansas Constitution. Id. It is undisputed that none of the officers informed Mr. Johnson that he had the right to refuse consent to the entry and subsequent search of his home. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for the suppression of all evidence that flowed from this unconstitutional search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State
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.