Rodriguez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2009
6 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 468 So. 2d 1067 - State v. Fuksman · 433 So. 2d 545 - Horvitz v. State · 505 So. 2d 579 - Hutchinson v. State · State v. Cross · 519 So. 2d 603 - State v. Hutchinson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“into the car. The issue was whether the consent to search was limited to the interior of the car and did not extend to a sealed box found inside, or to the trunk of the car. Regarding the sealed box, the court stated that a general consent to search an area does not automatically give the police the right to destroy any container. Id. at 513 . We believe the Rodriguez decision would survive the objectively reasonable test of Jimeno in that the search of the sealed box inside the car and the search of the closed trunk unreasonably exceeded the limited request and consent to”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oliver v. State“in the car. The officer found a box wrapped in paper lying on the rear floorboard and discovered cocaine when he cut open the box. This court held that Rodriguez's consent was limited to the interior of the vehicle and did not include consent to search the sealed box or the trunk of the vehicle. This court stated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Abrams“The search of the sealed box found on the rear floor board was unlawful since the troopers were not given actual consent to open the box nor did they have probable cause to open the box based on knowledge that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Abrams
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.