Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 S.W.2d 331 - Sanchez v. State

Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 1999
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 365th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Boyd v. United States · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Hernandez v. State

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

  1. “The net effect of the [S]tate’s position is that because the Border Patrol officer’s “hunch” regarding illegal aliens happened to hit pay dirt on this occasion as to marihuana, the end justifies the means. However, overexuberant Border Patrol officers, armed with such an unconstitutional license as suggested by the [Sjtate, would subject countless innocent citizens to improper violations of their constitutional rights where such “hunches” failed to pay off. As the last bastion of justice, the courts must protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “— appellant’s car was heading out of a Texas border town in a direction where there were ranches, — appellant did not appear to be a rancher, — appellant’s car appeared to be riding low, — appellant appeared nervous as he failed to look at the border patrol vehicle when it approached and passed him, — appellant was driving his vehicle slowly in light early morning traffic, and — appellant’s vehicle was registered in Travis County.”
    1 later decision 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.