Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 N.J. 1 - State v. Slockbower

State v. Slockbower’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
13
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably State v. Bruzzese (1983), State v. Alston (1981)

89 state decisions — followed in 13 states

400197919801990200020102020decided

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 · Chambers v. Maroney · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sedillo 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “nevertheless it remains the law that motor vehicles constitute areas of privacy of persons and effects within the general protection of the Fourth Amendment and our own Constitution.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]here has been a substantial and growing minority of jurisdictions which have insisted upon a factual showing of substantial police need, in the light of the constitutional regard for the privacy interests of automobile drivers, before approving the impoundment of a motor vehicle. Mozzetti v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal.3d 699 , 94 Cal. Rptr. 412 , 484 P.2d 84 (S. Ct. 1971); People v. Miller, 7 Cal.3d 219 , 101 Cal. Rptr. 860 , 496 P.2d 1228 (S. Ct. 1972); State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618 , 539 P.2d 294 (S. Ct. 1975); State v. Singleton, 9 Wash. App. 327 , 511 P.2d 1396 (Ct. App. 1973); State v. Hardman, 17 Wash. App. 910 , 567 P.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1977); Granville v. State, 348 So.2d 641 (Fla. Dis. Ct. App. 1977); State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. S. Ct. 1977); State v. McCranie, 137 Ga. App. 369 , 223 S.E.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1976); City of Danville v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975); Duncan v. State, 281 Md. 247 , 378 A.2d 1108, 1116 (Ct. App. 1977); Dixon v. State, 23 Md. App. 19 , 327 A.2d 516 (Ct. Sp. App. 1974); State v. Jewell, 338 So.2d 633 (La. Sup. Ct. 1976); United States v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C. Ct. App. 1969). Federal decisions in general accord are United States v. Lawson, 487 F.2d 468 (8 Cir. 1973); United States v. Edwards, 554 F.2d 1331 (5 Cir. 1977); United States v. Hellman, 556 F.2d 442 (9 Cir. 1977). See also State v. McDaniel, 156 N.J. Super. 347 , 383 A.2d 1174 (App. Div. 1978).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “be subordinated to mere considerations of convenience to the police short of substantial necessities grounded in the public safety.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.