State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably City of Xenia v. Wallace (1988), State v. Pena (1994)
1 district · 52 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 · Adams v. Williams · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · United States v. Chadwick · Arkansas v. Sanders
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Terry, the Supreme Court established a narrowly drawn exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police obtain a warrant for all searches. Where a police officer validly stops an individual for investigatory or other purposes and reasonably believes that the individual may be armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a "frisk" or "pat-down" search of the individual to discover weapons that might be used against him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally, this Court will not rule on an issue raised on appeal for the first time. This rule is particularly applicable to motions to suppress which should be supported by precise averments, not con-clusory allegations. [[Image here]] There is nothing in the record to indicate that the point now urged upon this Court was unavailable or unknown to defendant at the time he filed his motion to suppress, and to entertain the point now would be to sanction the practice of withholding positions that should properly be presented to the trial court but which may be withheld for the purpose of seeking a reversal on appeal and a new trial or dismissal. Generally, there is no justification for not presenting all available grounds in support of a motion to suppress, and in the absence of special circumstances, an appellate court will not rule on grounds not addressed in the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Belgard“[D]ue process requires a prosecutor to disclose even unrequested information which is or may be exculpatory.”
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.