238 So. 2d 608 - Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2010
1 federal appellate · 10 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 Carroll v. United States · Ker v. State of California · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · See v. City of Seattle · Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(5) POWERS OF OFFICERS. — The department may designate such employees of the several divisions, as it may deem necessary in its discretion, as law enforcement officers ... of this state with full power to investigate and arrest for any violation of the laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the department under their jurisdiction . . . Such law enforcement officers shall have the authority, without warrant, to board, inspect, and search any boat , . .or vehicle engaged in transporting or storing any fish or fishery products. Such authority to search and inspect without a search warrant is limited to those cases in which such law enforcement officers have reason to believe that fish or any saltwater products are taken or kept for sale, barter, transportation, or other purposes in violation of laws or rules promulgated under this law. . . . Such law enforcement officers may arrest any person in the act of violating any of the provisions of this law, rules or regulations of the department, ... or any of the laws of this state.” [emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roth v. State“This Court established long ago that protection and regulation of shrimping and fishing within the state's waters is a valid exercise of a sovereign's police powers... . The Legislature has recognized that the supply of shrimp should be conserved and that the shrimp industry is valuable to the economy of Florida and needs protection. Shrimping is a gainful activity which may be subjected to certain reasonable limitations and conditions without violating any constitutional rights of those subject to the regulations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“within the framework of probable cause described in Section 370.021(5).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tingley v. Brown
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.