State v. Solis’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Hulse v. State, Department of Justice (1998), State v. Siegal (1997)
32 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 · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · United States v. White · United States v. Caceres
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hardaway · State v. Siegal“Today, with wiretaps, electronic and bugging devices, photo surveillance equipment and computerized data banks, a person’s privacy can be invaded without his knowledge and the information so gained can be misused in the most insidious ways. It isn’t only a careless government that has this power to pry; political organizations, private information gathering firms, and even an individual can now snoop more easily and more effectively than ever before. We certainly hope that such snooping is not as widespread as some persons would have us believe, but with technology easily available and becoming more refined all the time, prudent safeguards against the misuse of such technology are needed. Some may urge and argue that this is a legislative, not a constitutional issue. We think the right of privacy is like a number of other inalienable rights; a carefully worded constitutional article reaffirming this right is desirable. We at the committee felt very strongly that the people of Montana should be protected as much as possible against eavesdropping, electronic surveillance, and such type of activities. ... [W]e found that the citizens of Montana were very suspicious of such type of activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Siegal“There has been unnecessary emphasis placed on distinguishing right to privacy cases from search and seizure cases. The right to privacy is the cornerstone of protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, a warrantless search can violate a person’s right of privacy and thereby violate the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Siegal
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.