State v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2015
21 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 Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Boyd 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is firmly established that state courts may interpret their own constitutions in such a way as to expand rights conferred by the Federal Constitution. The principle of federalism envisions two separate and independent judicial systems: federal courts, which construe federal law, and state courts, which construe state law. State courts may, therefore, develop state law to provide their citizens with a second layer of constitutional rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Forrester
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.