Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

illinois Vs. Lidster

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 2004

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

30 entries 6 linked 24 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Martinez-fuerte US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  2. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  3. Florida Vs. Royer US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1983
  4. Pierce County Vs. Guillen US Supreme Court · Nov 04, 2002
  5. New York Vs. Class US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1986
  6. Indianapolis Vs. Edmond US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2000
  7. Syllabus October Term, 2003 Illinois V. Lidster
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States Illinois V. Lidster
    Search
  9. but the state appellate court reversed. The State Supreme Court agreed, holding that, in light of Indianapolis v. Edmond
    Search
  10. s car as his castle, see, e.g., New York v. Class
    Search
  11. will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion, see, e.g., Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  12. Brown v. Texas
    Search
  13. filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Illinois v. Lidster
    Search
  14. Opinion of the Court Illinois V. Lidster
    Search
  15. Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1060 Illinois, Petitioner V. Robert
    Search
  16. Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court. It held (by a vote of 4 to 3) that our decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond
    Search
  17. Because lower courts have reached different conclusions about this matter, we granted certiorari. See Burns v. Commonwealth
    Search
  18. concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion. See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  19. That, in part, is because voluntary requests play a vital role in police investigatory work. See, e.g. , Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  20. hence, its constitutionality, on the basis of the individual circumstances. And as this Court said in Brown v. Texas
    Search
  21. stop was constitutional. The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is Reversed . Illinois v. Lidster
    Search
  22. s opinion explaining why our decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond
    Search
  23. cars. In short, the outcome of the multifactor test prescribed in Brown v. Texas
    Search
  24. Court and the State Supreme Court held that the Lombard roadblock was per se unconstitutional under Indianapolis v. Edmond
    Search
  25. of Indianapolis v. Edmond
    Search
  26. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  27. Illinois, Petitioner V. Robert
    Search
  28. See Burns v. Commonwealth
    Search
  29. See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  30. Haynes v. Washington
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial