8 Kan. App. 2d 14 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably V-1 Oil Company v. State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (1990), V-1 Oil Company v. Means (1996)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Delaware v. Prouse · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he superintendent and members of the Kansas highway patrol are hereby authorized and directed to execute and enforce the laws of this state relating to public and private motor carriers of passengers or property, including any rules and regulations relating to such laws, and shall have the power and authority to require the driver of any motor vehicle owned or operated by any such carrier to stop and submit such vehicle to an inspection to determine compliance with such laws and rules and regulations.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ These decisions make clear that a warrant may not be constitutionally required when Congress has reasonably determined that warrantless searches are necessary to fiirther a regulatory scheme and the federal regulatory presence is sufficiently comprehensive and defined that the owner of commercial property cannot help but be aware that his property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes.’ 452 U.S. at 598-600 (emphasis supplied).” 8 Kan. App. 2d at 19 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“spot check[ ] of pervasively regulated commercial businesses to insure compliance with regulations furnished to them by the state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.