State v. Dias’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably State v. Kaluna (1974), Duncan and Smith v. State (1976)
3 federal appellate · 46 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 · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mapp v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · Jones 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every individual has expectations of privacy with regard to his person wherever he may go, be it a public park or a private place; yet this is not so with regard to places where an individual happens to be. The place must be of such a character as to give rise reasonably to these expectations of privacy. [ State v. Dias, 52 Haw. 100, 107 , 470 P.2d 510, 514 (1970).] (emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lester · State v. Bonnell“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized or the communications sought to be intercepted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kaluna“The short answer to the question of standing in this case is that the state cannot charge a person with possession and then deny that person his remedy at law to object to the search and seizure of that which the state says is his. The state cannot have it both ways. [52 Haw. at 105, 470 P.2d at 513 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Joao
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.