Fitzgerald v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Greenstreet v. State (2006), Byndloss v. State (2006)
2 federal appellate · 114 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 · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Place · Elkins v. United States · United States v. Jacobsen
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) to require counsel to bring the position of their client to the attention of the lower court at the trial so that the trial court can pass upon, and possibly correct any errors in the proceedings, and (b) to prevent the trial of cases in a piecemeal fashion, thus accelerating the termination of litigation.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The majority focuses on the scope and nature of the “sniff’ or “test” rather than the location in determining whether a legitimate privacy interest [exists]. The majority concludes that the only locational or circumstantial determination relevant to the inquiry is whether the dog was permitted outside the object sniffed. I would have no quarrel with this analysis if the scope and nature of the “search” was an object, i.e., an automobile, piece of luggage, or the like used in transit. My disagreement with the majority holding is that a random scanning of residences or people for the detection of contraband will lead to no protections for those who cannot afford to live in residences with no surrounding common space and subject them to selective law enforcement.”
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.