State v. Wyatt’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Kelekolio (1993), Hulse v. State, Department of Justice (1998)
3 federal appellate · 112 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · United States v. Mendenhall · Schmerber v. State of California
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Field sobriety tests are designed and administered to avoid the shortcomings of casual observation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nakagawa · State v. Sebay“[T]he privilege [against self-incrimination] is a bar against compelling 'communications' or 'testimony[.]'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the State argues that once a motor vehicle has been stopped for a traffic violation, the police may, without more, order the driver to get out of the vehicle. If the case stands for the broad proposition urged by the State, we are not prepared, “as the ultimate judicial tribunal” with “final, unreviewable authority to interpret and enforce the Hawaii Constitution," State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 369 , 520 P.2d 51, 58 (1974), to hold that a valid traffic stop of itself provides reason to order the driver to get out of the vehicle. Article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, which protects the right of the people of Hawaii to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against the unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy, is not subject to the reading urged upon us.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kim · State v. Guernsey
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.