Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 411 F.2d 857 - Jones v. Peyton

Jones v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

411 F.2d 857 · 1969

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
November 1989
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1989

7 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

80196919701980decided

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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Di Re · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Davis v. Mississippi · Winters v. People of State of New York

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Fedele v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 551 , 138 S.E.2d 256 (1964)], however, expressly held that the statute comes into play only if it is shown that the accused is one whose “habit is to move about at night for the purpose of committing some crime, or disturbing the peace, or doing some wrongful or wicked act.” (Emphasis supplied.) The word “habit” is defined * * * as “a settled tendency of behavior.” * * * The inquiry [here] is whether in the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrests the police had reasonable ground to believe that the appellants were “not of good fame” and were “night-prowlers” within the restrictive definition of the Fedele court. Manifestly the facts known to the investigating officers furnished an utterly insufficient basis for such belief. Jones v. Peyton, supra, 861.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.