State v. Hygh’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Larocco (1990), State v. Lopez (1994)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Maroney · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to support a finding that a valid inventory search has taken place, the court must first determine whether there was reasonable and proper justification for the impoundment of the vehicle. This justification, and thus lawful impoundment, can be had either through explicit statutory authorization or by the circumstances surrounding the initial stop.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]olice officers and judges attempting to make their way through this labyrinth often imperil both the rights of individuals and the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Larocco · State v. Johnson“Once the threat that the suspect will injure the officers with concealed weapons or will destroy evidence is gone, there is no persuasive reason why the officers cannot take the time to secure a warrant. Such a requirement would present little impediment to police investigations, especially in light of the ease with which warrants can be obtained under Utah's telephonic warrant statute, U.C.A., 1953, § 7-23-4(2) (1982 ed.).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Larocco
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.