Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 55 Haw. 583 - State v. Nabarro

State v. Nabarro’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
9
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

2 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 8 Haw. App. 610 - State v. Mundell (1991), State v. Joyner (1983)

2 district · 42 state decisions

160197419801990200020102020decided

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 · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · United States v. Di Re · Boykin v. Alabama · Smith 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[P]olice cannot realistically be expected to avoid searching the property of a mere visitor to the premises unless they are aware of its ownership. Absent a requirement of such awareness, the effective execution of a warrant to search a place would be impossible since the police could never be sure that a plausible repository for items named in the warrant belongs to a resident, and hence is searchable, or to a non-resident, and hence is not searchable. Because of this, without notice of some sort of the ownership of a belonging, the police are entitled to assume that all objects within the premises lawfully subject to search under a warrant are a part of those premises for the purpose of executing the warrant....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “there was no question that the police had notice, prior to the search, that Miss Nabarro — indisputably a non-resident visitor to the premises — was the owner of the purse. The warrant named two men as the occupants of the room to be searched, making it likely that any purses, which are characteristically female attire, found in the room belonged to non-residents.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “beyond the allowable scope of the warrant to search the room.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.