Lewis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Crosby v. State (2009), Holt v. State (2013)
37 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 · United States v. Mendenhall · Whren v. United States · United States v. Cortez · Delaware v. Prouse
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonable suspicion that the car is being driven contrary to the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles or that either the car or any of its occupants is subject to seizure or detention in connection with the violation of any other applicable laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]emporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a 'seizure' of 'persons' within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he police have the right to stop and detain the operator of a vehicle when they witness a violation of a traffic law. See, e.g., Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 481 , 893 A.2d 1119, 1130-31 (2006) (“[The law enforcement officer] conducted a lawful stop of [the vehicle] in which [the defendant] was the front seat passenger, after observing that the [vehicle]’s license plate was obscured by a plastic license plate cover [in violation of Section 13-411 of the Transportation Article].”); [State v.] Green, 375 Md. [595], 614 [ 826 A.2d 486 (2003)] (“In the case sub judice, like in Ferris , the parties do not dispute that [the law enforcement officer] stopped [the defendant] because he had probable cause to believe [that the defendant] had violated the law by exceeding the posted speed limit.”); State v. Wallace, 372 Md. 137, 141 , 812 A.2d 291 , 294, 296 (2003)[, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1140 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 951 (2004) ] (stating that it was agreed that [a traffic] stop was justified after [a law enforcement] officer -witnessed [a] vehicle exceed [the] speed limit and run a red light); Nathan [v. State ], 370 Md. [648] 661 [ 805 A.2d 1086 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1194 , 123 S.Ct. 1303 , 154 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2003) ] (determining that [a traffic] stop was justified after [a law enforcement] officer witnessed [a] vehicle [that was] speeding on a public highway); Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554, 572 , 774 A.2d 420, 431 (2001) (finding that [a traffic] stop was justifie”
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.