Fyock v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Brown v. State (1995), Averhart v. State (1984)
22 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[Nlo straightforward rule has emerged from the litigated cases respecting the question involved here-the question of the proper scope of the search of the interior of an automobile incident to a lawful custodial arrest of one of its occupants. - "While the Chime! case established that a search incident to an arrest may not stray beyond the area beyond the immediate control of the arrestee, the courts have found no workable definition of 'the area within the immediate control of the arrestee' when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant .... In order to establish the workable rule this category of cases requires, we read Chimel's definition of the limits of the area that may be searched in light of that generalization. Accordingly, we hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State““We do not regard the Belton case as enunciating a ‘new’ constitutional principle- [T]he Court only sought to explain and elaborate on the ‘search incident to an arrest’ exception .... ... Belton is merely additional authority for, and application of well established principles of law. The decision in the case at bar would be the same if Belton had never been decided.” Id. at 1092.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the area within the immediate control of the arrestee”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State
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.