Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 SO2D 1021 - Waldrop v. State

Waldrop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 551 So. 2d 435 - Morrison v. State (1989), 601 So. 2d 1062 - Williams v. State (1992)

45 state decisions

2201984199020002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Payton v. New York · Spinelli 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “". . . the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another either by touching, or by any act which indicates an intention to take him into custody and subject the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest, or any deprivation of the liberty of one person by another or any detention of him, for however short a time, without his consent, and against his will, whether it was by actual violence, threats or otherwise." 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 2 (1975).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “must be determined from the facts of each case.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"As a general rule, it is within the trial court's discretion to allow individual voir dire of prospective jurors. . . . The mere fact that prospective jurors know something about a case, at the time of empaneling, is not unusual, nor is it sufficient to invoke individual voir dire where the trial court takes the necessary steps to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial by a panel of impartial and indifferent jurors."”
    3 later decisions 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.