Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Md. App. 565 - Kirsch v. State

10 Md. App. 565 - Kirsch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
6
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2008

13 state decisions

601970198019902000decided

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 Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Hoffa v. United States · Stoner v. California · Mancusi v. DeForte

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

  1. “That there may be circumstances ... where a person is afforded Fourth Amendment protection from unwarranted governmental intrusion into particular areas within a public rest room, does not mean that an individual who may intend to avail himself of exclusive occupancy of the whole of such a public facility is thereby constitutionally insulated for as long as he wishes from unwelcome scrutiny of his action_ Assuming it not unreasonable for a person given the key to a rest room in a gas station to expect a measure of privacy therein, that expectation of privacy is necessarily limited to that which is justifiable and reasonable; and what they encompass depends upon and is controlled by the circumstances of each case. At best, the expectation of privacy in a free restroom, facility, or any part of it, which is intended to be accessible for public use cannot be other than temporary. And where ... no reasonable person would be justified in expect ing absolute privacy in, or exclusive use of such a facility, particularly where the length of such occupancy and use far exceeded, as here, normally permissible limits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.