State v. Boyer’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Lovegren (2002), State v. Hill (2004)
49 state decisions
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 · Carroll v. United States · William Marbury v. James Madison · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Berger v. New York
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In complying with the well established license requirements, anglers acknowledge the prospect of at least some governmental intrusion into their activities. In engaging in this highly regulated activity, an angler must assume the burdens of the sport as well as its benefits. Thus, no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy exists when a wildlife enforcement officer checks for hunting and fishing licenses in open season near game habitat, inquires about game taken, and requests to inspect game in the field. In this capacity, game wardens are acting not only as law enforcement officers, but as public trustees protecting and conserving Montana’s wildlife and habitat for all of its citizens. íd., pág. 776.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the person has an actual expectation of privacy; (2) whether society is willing to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable; and (3) the nature of the State’s intrusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hill · 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.