State v. Halfmann’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 222 Ill. 2d 530 - People v. Luedemann (2006), State v. Walters (1996)
25 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 · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez · Cady v. Dombrowski · 137 Ill. 2d 382 - People v. Murray
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.
““A trial court’s findings of fact in preliminary proceedings of a criminal case will not be reversed if, after conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affir-mance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.... We evaluate the evidence presented to see, based on the standard of review, if it supports the findings of fact.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Konewko · State v. Boyd“No seizure within the context of the Fourth Amendment occurs when an officer approaches a parked vehicle if the officer inquires of the occupant in a conversational manner, does not order the person to do something, and does not demand a response. Not all citizen-law enforcement encounters implicate a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights; a seizure occurs only when a law enforcement officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some manner restrains the liberty of a citizen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Glaesman
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.