Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 Md. 648 - Nathan v. State

Nathan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Longshore v. State (2007), Crosby v. State (2009)

98 state decisions

690200220102020decided

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 · Illinois v. Gates · Carroll v. United States · Florida v. Royer · Ornelas 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Courts] must look at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that “might well elude an untrained person.” Although an officer’s reliance on a mere “hunch” is insufficient to justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the person to be searched and the person or things to be seized.[ 11 ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968), and its progeny created a limited exception to the probable cause requirement for investigative detentions, because the balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in those cases. Under Terry , certain seizures are justifiable under the Fourth Amendment if there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. For Fourth Amendment purposes, a police officer who has reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoked suspicion.”
    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.