Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 S.W.2d 177 - State v. Young

State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably State v. Burkhardt (1990), State v. Lovell (1974)

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

140196819701980199020002010decided

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 Mapp v. Ohio · Henry v. United States · State v. Hefflin · State v. Owens · State v. Cuezze

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

  1. ““Defendant said he agreed to open the trunk, but not until he had told [the officer] he did not want to open it to begin with, that he ‘didn’t like people looking through my private stuff’, but the police said ‘We are going to be looking at them now whether you like it or not’, and rather than have the car ‘mistreated’, defendant opened the trunk.” Id. at 179 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “". . . [i]f an officer appears at a person's home, and in his official character demands the privilege of searching the premises, the owner of the premises who yields peaceably and silently to the official demand is as much under constraint as if he had forcibly resisted official interference."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Furthermore, if a conviction can stand merely on a showing of possession of tools which can be used for legitimate purposes as well as for burglary, together with proof of a prior conviction, no released convict could ever safely be in possession of working tools no matter how honest his actual intentions might be.” Id. at pp. 182, 183.”
    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.