Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 SO2D 749 - Robinson v. State

Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2017

24 state decisions

1201982199020002010decided

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 South Dakota v. Opperman · Cady v. Dombrowski · Leary v. United States · Cooper v. State of California · Turner 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under the Fourth Amendment, warrant-less searches are presumptively unreasonable. There is, however, an exception to the warrant requirement when a law enforcement officer conducts an inventory of seized property if that inventory is part of a bona fide police “routine administrative caretaking function.” Under these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment requires only that an inventory not be a “ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence”.... Thus, an inventory search of a seized vehicle is reasonable and not violative of the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with (1) protecting the property of the vehicle’s owner, (2) protecting the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) protecting the police from danger.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The reasonableness of any search without a warrant is measured from the standpoint of the conduct of the searchers. If their conduct is in some way reprehensible; or if they precipitate a search and are motivated therein solely by a desire to "hunt" for incriminating evidence; or if they do so without any plausible explanation or justification; the invasion is an unreasonable one.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Court instructs the jury that the possession of property recently stolen is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury and from which, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt.”
    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.