Duncantell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2006 · most notably Drew v. State (1987), Russell v. State (1980)
32 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 · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Chambers v. Maroney · Swain v. State of Alabama
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Once a bona fide stop or arrest has been made for a traffic offense, the police can make additional arrest for any other offense unexpectedly discovered during the course of the investigation. If, while questioning a motorist regarding the operation of [the] vehicle, an officer sees evidence of a criminal violation in open view, or in some other manner acquires probable cause on a more serious charge he may arrest for that offense and incident thereto1 conduct an additional search for physical evidence.” (Emphasis in the original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. State · Parker v. State““Appellant initially complains of systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury. The thrust of his argument is that the State used its peremptory challenges to strike qualified blacks from the jury panel. The same argument was confronted and rejected in Ridley v. State, 475 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), wherein we stated: “ ‘We hold that no systematic exclusion has been shown. To hold otherwise would in effect be abolishing our peremptory challenge practice which has always been a part of our system to help an accused as well as the State obtain an impartial jury and a fair trial.’ “See also Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965).” Id. at 254 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ned v. State · Evans v. State““It is common knowledge that usage of marihuana, or of a combination of marihuana and alcohol, often results in a form of intoxication.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker v. State
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.