Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 482 N.W.2d 218 - State v. Othoudt

State v. Othoudt’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
3
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Harris (1999), 23921s Berger Transfer Storage v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (1996)

96 state decisions

4201992200020102020decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Payton v. New York

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

  1. “[W]hen reviewing a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the [district] court’s decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Normally [an appellate] court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the [district] court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, un less reversed, the error -will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    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.