King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 42 U.S.C. § 14135A
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Franks v. Delaware
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an individual who is charged with ... a crime of violence or an attempt to commit a crime of violence; or ... burglary or an attempt to commit burglary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Maryland v. King · Diggs v. State“DNA sample collected from an individual charged with a crime ... may not be tested or placed in the statewide DNA data base system prior to the first scheduled arraignment date.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“all qualifying criminal charges are determined to be unsupported by probable cause ... the DNA sample shall be immediately destroyed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.