Boyle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Santellan v. State (1997), Bell v. State (1996)
65 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) proximity of the consent to the arrest; (2) whether the seizure brought about police observation of the particular object they sought consent to search; (3) whether the illegal seizure was flagrant police misconduct; (4) whether the consent was volunteered rather than requested by the detaining officers; (5) whether the arrestee was made fully aware of the fact he could decline to consent and thus prevent an immediate search of the car or residence; and (6) whether the police purpose underlying the illegality was to obtain consent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Larson v. State · Williams v. State“[i]n a prosecution for ... aggravated sexual assault ... evidence of specific instances of an alleged victim’s past sexual behavior is ... not admissible, unless: (1) such evidence is admitted in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of the rule; (2) it is evidence (A) that is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the state; (B) of past sexual behavior with the accused and is offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior which is the basis of the offense charged; (C) that relates to the motive or bias of the alleged victim; (D) is admissible under Rule 609; or (E) that is constitutionally required to be admitted; and, (3) its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hood v. State“We do hold that the procedure utilized in placing the appellant under arrest pursuant to a grand jury material witness attachment was a pretext, subterfuge, and deceptive artifice intentionally employed to circumvent the principles and tenets of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution. Consequently, we conclude that appellant’s arrest on October 17, 1995, as a result of the issuance of the grand jury attachment, was illegal and unlawful for lack of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guardiola 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.