Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 SO2D 62 - State v. Moreno

State v. Moreno’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
3
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably State v. Smith (2000), 720 So. 2d 1179 - State v. Fisher (1998)

67 state decisions

330199320002010decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Beck v. State of Ohio

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

  1. “The Moreno court explained at 66: Under Louisiana law, in order to make a valid arrest without a warrant, an officer must have reasonable (probable) cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense. Reasonable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer and of which he has reasonable, trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a man of ordinary caution in believing that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. [citations omitted; emphasis in original].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment when a reasonable person would think that he was not free to leave... An investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, or there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the person is wanted for past criminal conduct. Based on the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—the detaining officers must have particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. (Citations omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 5. Right to Privacy Section 5. Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy. No warrant shall issue without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized, and the lawful purpose or reason for the search. Any person adversely affected by a search or seizure conducted in violation of this Section shall have standing to raise its illegality in the appropriate court.”
    2 later decisions 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.