State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Reichenbach (2004), State v. Morse (2005)
47 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Payton v. New York · 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) the officer subjectively believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety reasons; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was a need for assistance; and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schultz · State v. Schultz“allows for the limited invasion of constitutionally protected privacy rights when it is necessary for police officers to render aid or assistance or when making routine checks on health and safety.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“test. Under this test, the court considers the untainted evidence admitted at trial to determine if it is so overwhelming that it necessarily leads to a finding of guilt. Criminal Rule 3.1 ¶ 31 Scherf was charged with aggravated first degree murder in Snohomish County Everett Division District Court on February 24, 2011. Before February 24, Scherf had not been charged; therefore, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached. While Scherf references the Sixth Amendment, he relies on CrR 3.1 to argue that his videotaped confessions should be suppressed. ¶ 32 CrR 3.1(b)(1) states that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Scherf
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.