green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rich v. Hersl
He contends that there were no allegations he lacked legal justification for the stop and explains that a “brief investigative detention” is justified based on an articulable, reasonable suspicion. /d. at 4-5 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bivens
Because no bright-line rule exists, 22 1-17-2080 People v. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 18 , we owe officers and the public more precise guidance. ¶ 59 The law requires, absent probable cause, that officers have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, a standard that “protect[s] innocent persons from *** ‘overbearing or harassing’ police conduct carried out solely on the basis of imprecise stereotypes of what criminals look like, or on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics such as race.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 13 (1989) (Mars…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Samoa Government v. Enoka
Having found that the detectives had probable cause to search the vehicle, there is no need to provide a detailed analysis under the much more lenient “reasonable suspicion” standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ernest James Perkins
Terry v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Curtis Clifford Ingram v. C. Rachal
The pendency of an action related to conduct by specific prison officials 19 however, does in itself not give a court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. 20 Id.; see also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 , 129 S. Ct. 1142 , 173 21 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CALIFORNIANS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE IN NOVEMBER Et Al.
v.
CALIFORNIA Et Al.
v.
CALIFORNIA Et Al.
605.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1968.
Doris Brian Walker for appellants., Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorney General, and Clayton P. Roche, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The appeal is dismissed. California is on the eve of a national election. Millions of ballots are being printed and in a few hours the absentee ballots will be sent out of State. Whatever may be the merits of the controversy, the shortness of time and the complicated task of preparing and distributing the ballots make it very doubtful if any effective relief would be possible.