Pringle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
41
cited by 41 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2017
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“I agree that the legal sufficiency of evidence in possession of narcotics cases requires the State to produce evidence of dominion or control over the narcotic allegedly possessed, and knowledge therewith, beyond a reasonable doubt. I disagree, however, that the degree of evidence required for a conviction on the charge of possession of narcotics can be equated to that which is required of police officers when making probable cause determinations for warrantless ar rests. Courts reviewing such determinations must not confuse or blend the two standards: probable cause for an arrest (a lower standard than legal sufficiency for a conviction) requires the reasonable belief that the person arrested had committed or was committing the felony crime of possession of narcotics. As we have oft explained, “probable cause is a nontechnical conception of a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, requiring less evidence for such belief than would justify a conviction ....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Probable cause exists where `the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Maryland v. Pringle
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.