Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 764 So. 2d 148 - State v. Dank

764 So. 2d 148 - State v. Dank’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

16 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Mendenhall · Whren v. United States · Scott v. United States · State v. Sepulvado · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos

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

  1. “[a] law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and the law applicable to the case. The argument shall not appeal to prejudice. The state’s rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.”
    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.