Hazelwood v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2012
7 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 33 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Nix v. Williams · Kastigar v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Brown v. Walker · United States v. Monia
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person in charge of a vessel ... shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any discharge of oil ..., immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States Government of such discharge_ Notification received pursuant to this paragraph or information obtained by the exploitation of such notification shall not be used against any such person in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false statement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the present case, witnesses called by the state during the evidentiary hearing testified that the grounding of the Exxon Valdez would in all likelihood have been discovered and investigated, with negligible delay, even if Hazel-wood had failed to notify the Coast Guard immediately. Based on this testimony, Judge Johnstone declared the inevitable discovery doctrine applicable: The defendant’s report of the grounding notwithstanding, the state inevitably would have discovered the grounding of the Exxon Valdez and initiated the investigatory process by not later than 12:45 a.m. on March 24, 1989. The court further concludes, based on the facts, that the investigating team ... would have arrived at approximately the same time as they, in fact, did. Any observation made or investigation actually commenced would have been made or commenced at approximately the same time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hazelwood“Because the ultimate aim of the . . . privilege is to assure that no compelled statement will be used against the accused in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the . . . protection against compulsory elicitation of potentially incriminating statements . . . may be properly invaded by the government, but only in exchange for a guarantee that the . . . compelled statements or evidence derived therefrom . . . will not be [used against the person].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rivers
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.