Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 Ark. App. 125 - Rankin v. State

57 Ark. App. 125 - Rankin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably 61 Ark. App. 174 - Ramage v. State (1998), 159 Md. App. 253 - Alston v. State (2004)

28 state decisions

180199720002010decided

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 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio) · Davasher v. State · Littlepage v. State · Passley v. State · Brenk v. State

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.

  1. “In this matter, Littlepage bore the burden of proving not only that the search of the car he drove was illegal, but also that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that car. The proof revealed that the car Littlepage was driving was rented to Rebecca Jones, who was not present at the time of the arrest. Ms. Jones was the only authorized driver in the rental agreement. Littlepage claimed that Ms.Jones had rented the car for him in Dallas for his use when his own car had broken down, but there was no showing that this assertion had any validity. Besides, the rental agreement authorizing Ms. Jones to drive the car had expired two days prior to Littlepage’s traffic stop and arrest. Clearly, Littlepage failed to establish his expectation of privacy in the searched automobile. Accordingly, we conclude that Litdepage had no standing to challenge the officer’s search as unconstitutional. Because Littlepage had no expectation of privacy in the car, the issue of whether or not this was a pretextual search is of no moment.”
    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.