green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances .... ”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances...."
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Scotty Lee Hudson
(2×)
reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances ....
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Luster, G.
“If counsel’s chosen course had some reasonable basis, the inquiry ends and counsel’s assistance is deemed effective.” Id. at 1064.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Indiana v. Justin Crager
See Northrop v. Trippett , 265 F.3d 372 , 379 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a duffle bag was lawfully searched incident to arrest where the defendant removed the bag from his shoulder and placed it at his feet, an officer stopped the defendant near the bag and then placed the defendant under arrest at that same location, and the bag was searched almost immediately), reh'g en banc denied , cert. denied , 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1358 , 152 L.Ed.2d 354 (2002) ; State v. Mercier , 883 N.W.2d 478 , 492-493 (N.D. 2016) (upholding a search where the defendant had the backpack in his actual possessio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Frommert v. Conkright
See Henglein v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 260 F.3d 201, 215 (3d Cir.2001) (“The courts are not at liberty to rewrite the terms of an ERISA plan”), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1358 , 152 L.Ed.2d 354 (2002); United McGill Corp. v. Stinnett, 154 F.3d 168, 173 (4th Cir.1998) (use of federal common law applicable to ERISA actions “is not a license to rewrite the Plan to the Court’s tastes”) (quoting Health and Welfare Plan for Employees of REM, Inc. v. Ridler, 942 F.Supp. 431, 435 (D.Minn.1996), aff 'd, 124 F.3d 207 (table), 1997 WL 559745 (8th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Powell
“Our Death Penalty Statute provides that if the jury finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, then the verdict must be death.” Buehl, 508 A.2d at 1181 (construing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711 (c)(1)(iv)); see also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 565 Pa. 289 , 773 A.2d 131, 139 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1360 , 152 L.Ed.2d 355 (2002) (sentencing procedure for first-degree murder requires sentence of death if jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hudson
See, e.g., Northrop v. Trippett, 265 F.3d 372, 381 (6th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 955 (2002) (“Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances . . . .”); see also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002) (discussing same); United States v. Orsolini, 300 F.3d 724, 728 (6th Cir. 2002) (discussing same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ehlinger
v.
Granger
v.
Granger
01-1141.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 25, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (2)
EHLINGER
v.
GRANGER.
No. 01-1141.
Supreme Court of the United States.
March 25, 2002.
1
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 254 F. 3d 1077.