United States v. Ables’s Empirical Analysis
167 F.3d 1021 · 1999
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Copeland (2003), United States v. Chance (2002)
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Lopez · Wickard v. Filburn
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“create a danger of unlimited discretion in the executing officer's determination of what is subject to seizure and a danger that items will be seized when the warrant refers to other items.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] description is valid if it is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[a] fundamental principle of this court is that ‘[a] panel ... cannot overrule the decision of another panel. The prior decision remains controlling authority unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.