Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 515 SW2D 300 - Wood v. State

Wood v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
4
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Carmouche v. State (2000), Bell v. State (1986)

73 state decisions

3201974198019902000decided

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 · Chimel v. California · Adams v. Williams · James v. Valtierra · United States v. Mulligan

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

  1. ““ ‘The purpose of a limited search after investigatory stop is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the peace officer to pursue investigation without fear of violence. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to the purpose of enabling the officer to pursue investigation without fear of violence. . . . ’ (Emphasis supplied).””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The record relating to the search and seizure was not developed as well as it might have been, which always increases the burden upon the appellate court in passing on the grounds of error presented. Cf. Keah v. State, 508 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).””
    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.