State v. Bidegain’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Flores (1996), State v. Ruffino (1980)
2 federal appellate · 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Gooding v. United States · Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission · Duke City Lumber Company, Inc. v. Terrel · Maxwell v. Stephens
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A police officer making a lawful stop of a motorist is not precluded from making reasonable inquiries concerning the purpose or purposes for the stop.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is nothing wrong with an officer asking for information or asking for permission to make a search. Permission need not be initially volunteered to constitute consent, (citations omitted). A search authorized by consent is an exception to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause and is wholly valid. (Citations omitted.) “The question of the voluntariness of a consent is one of fact to be determined by the trial court from all the evidence adduced upon this issue. (Citations omitted.) It is for that court to weigh the evidence, determine its credibility or plausability, determine the credibility of the witnesses, and decide whether the evidence was sufficient to clearly and positively, or clearly and convincingly, establish that the consent was voluntarily given, (citations omitted.) It is for the appellate court to determine only if the evidence, viewed in its most favorable light in support of the finding of the trial court, can be said to clearly and convincingly support the finding, (citations omitted). To state it otherwise, it is for the appellate court to determine only whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the finding and considering the degree of proof required, substantially supports the finding.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bloom“[I]t is for the appellate court to determine only whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the finding and considering the degree of proof required, substantially supports the finding. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Swise
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.