D'ANTORIO v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2023
12 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 United States v. Ross · New York v. Belton · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Miller · Illinois v. Lafayette
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the pertinent issue is whether the intensity of Stauber’s warrantless search of the seized articles materially exceeded the scope of the inventory that Finch had previously conducted—in other words, whether Sergeant Stauber’s actions violated a reasonable expectation of privacy that had not already been “dissipated” by Finch’s earlier inspection. [[Image here]] From the testimony below, it appears that Stauber’s search of D’Antorio’s property may have been more intensive than Finch’s prior inventory search. However, this is a factual issue, which requires findings by the trial court in the first instance. We must therefore remand this case for additional findings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. D'ANTORIO v. State“The limited purpose of A.R.E. 106 is to allow a party to admit omitted portions of a partially admitted statement only when and only to the extent that the omitted portions are necessary to provide context to the admitted portions, or to explain or clarify them. The rule does not make admissible statements that would otherwise be inadmissible; it is meant only to allow contemporaneous admission of evidence that would ordinarily not be admissible until later stages of the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. McDonald“When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. McDonald
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.