Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 664 SW2D 345 - Lewis v. State

Lewis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
3
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Dewberry v. State (1999), Long v. State (1990)

2 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

4501984199020002010decided

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 · Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois

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

  1. “Appellant, a passenger, has standing to challenge the search of the automobile in which he is riding if the search resulted from an infringement (such as an illegal detention) of the passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights. ****** Assuming arguendo that the continued detention of the vehicle and the removal of the occupants from it were illegal under the Fourth Amendment, the relevant question becomes whether the search of [the driver’s] vehicle was come at by exploitation of appellant’s continued detention and removal from the vehicle.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The State does not have the burden of listing or verbalizing in the trial court every possible basis for holding a search legal or else waive that basis for urging on appeal the validity of the search.” Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); accord, Sullivan v. State, 564 S.W.2d 698, 704 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (on rehearing). Concerning a motion to suppress the fruits of a search, the court has said”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Once the initial legal detention became an illegal one, the [passenger's] presence was irrelevant to the officer's decision to search. Put another way, [the officer] could have let [the passenger] leave without hampering his ability to search the car. Thus, in no way was [the passenger's] detention necessary to perform the search.”
    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.