State v. Krebs’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Hess (2004), State v. Buchholz (1999)
28 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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Rakas v. Illinois · Delaware v. Prouse
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he factual basis required to support a stop for a “routine traffic check” is mini mal.... All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity. It is enough if the stop is based upon “specific and articu-lable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion[.]””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A trial court’s findings of fact from a suppression hearing must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.... This court’s function under the clearly erroneous standard is to determine whether the decision of the lower court lacks the support of substantial evidence, evolves from an erroneous view of the applicable law. or whether, considering the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In making this determination, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s decision.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Benallie · State v. Almond“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, separation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barber
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.