State v. Thurman’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
171 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Pena (1994), State v. Menzies (1994)
171 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
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 213
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Illinois v. Gates · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Mendenhall
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This doctrine, under which the first decision by a court on a particular question of law governs later decisions by the same court, is a cornerstone of the Anglo-American jurisprudence that is crucial to the predictability of the law and the fairness of adjudication.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[Sltare decisis has equal application when one panel of a multi-panel appellate court is faced with a prior decision of a different panel.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]f the police had no “purpose” in engaging in the misconduct ... suppression would have no deterrent value. At the other extreme, if the purpose of the misconduct was to achieve the consent, suppression of the resulting evidence clearly will have a deterrent effect and further analysis will rarely be required. Similarly, if the misconduct is flagrantly abusive, there is a greater likelihood that the police engaged in the conduct as a pretext for collateral objectives, and suppressing the resulting evidence will have a greater likelihood of deterring similar misconduct in the future.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.