Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 SW2D 244 - Dowthitt v. State

Dowthitt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

256
cited by 256 later decisions
7
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 246 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 256 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably King v. State (1997), Ladd v. State (1999)

2 federal appellate · 246 state decisions

11801996200020102020decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Mendenhall · Brown v. Illinois · Florida v. Bostick

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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) when the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, (2) when a law enforcement officer tells the suspect that he cannot leave, (3) when law enforcement officers create a situation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his freedom of movement has been significantly restricted, and (4) when there is probable cause to arrest and law enforcement officers do not tell the suspect that he is free to leave.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Probable cause to arrest; (2) Subjective intent of the police; (3) Focus of the investigation; and (4) Subjective belief of the defendant.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “• whether Miranda warnings were given; • the temporal proximity of the arrest and the evidence; • the presence of intervening circumstances; and • the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.