Gearing v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Livingston v. State (1987), Woods v. State (1997)
1 federal appellate · 84 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 · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Adams v. Williams · Dunaway v. New York
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the facts are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity, a detention based on those facts is unlawful,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions, (citations omitted). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification, (citations omitted). The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go his way.” (citation omitted) Asking for and examining Royer’s ticket and his driver’s license were no doubt permissible in themselves ... Royer, 103 S.Ct. at 1326 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grant“It is settled that when a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is overruled, the accused need not subsequently object to the admission of the same evidence at trial in order to preserve error. However, when the accused affirmatively asserts during trial the has “no objection” to the admission of the complained of evidence, he waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the pretrial ruling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. James 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.