Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 SO2D 1040 - State v. Daniel

State v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 696 So. 2d 757 - Holland v. State (1997), 961 So. 2d 284 - Hilton v. State (2007)

28 state decisions

160199520002010decided

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 Scott v. United States · Kashif v. United States · Maryland v. MacOn · United States v. Smith · Cummins v. United States

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

  1. “asking whether the stop—if occasioned by a minor infraction— was of a kind falling within the usual practices of the same or similar agencies.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In sum, would the officer have made the stop absent any improper motive. If the answer is "yes,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] stop for a minor infraction cannot be deemed pretextual on appeal where (1) the officer was acting with the proper scope of lawful authority, and (2) the record below contains competent substantial evidence that the stop was not objectively pretextual without regard to any subjective intentions, as demonstrated by the fact it was a usual police practice, and (3) the trial court has so found.”
    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.