State v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably State v. Smith (1988), Owens v. Kelley (1982)
89 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651
Relies on 5 Cal. 3d 759 - People v. Mason · Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner · United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez · State v. Fuentes · 26 Ariz. App. 444 - State v. Fuentes
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“his expectations of privacy are less than those of other citizens not so categorized.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Morgan · State v. Lietzau““It is obvious, however, that opinions differ as to what, controls are improper, and we express no opinion here regarding the extent to which the states constitutionally may impose conditions more intrusive on the probationer’s privacy than those we here have indicated are proper under the Federal Probation Act. For this reason we express no opinion regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Mason, 5 Cal.3d 759 , 97 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 488 P.2d 630 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1016 , 92 S.Ct. 1289 , 31 L.Ed.2d 478 (1972), which permitted contraband, discovered by means of a search by police officers pursuant to a probation condition similar to that before us, to be used in obtaining the conviction of a probationer for the offense to which the contraband related.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Perbix““[T]he court may require that a defendant comply with numerous conditions of probation v/hen, in the opinion of the court, such conditions aid in the rehabilitation process or prove a reasonable alternative to incarceration as punishment for the crime committed. The defendant, of course, may reject the terms of probation and ask to be incarcerated instead if he finds the terms and conditions of his probation unduly harsh. Unless the terms of probation are such as to violate basic fundamental rights or bear no relationship whatever to the purpose of probation over incarceration, we will not disturb the trial court in the exercise of its discretion in imposing conditions of probation.” State v. Montgomery, 115 Ariz. 583, 584 , 566 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith
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.