Centracchio v. Garrity’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.2d 382 · 1952
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1989 · most notably Di Bella v. United States (1962), Shotwell Manufacturing Company v. United States (1963)
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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. § 145 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Burdeau v. McDowell · Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States · Perlman 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The classical exposition of the nature of [a rule 41(e) motion] is Judge Hough’s statement in United States v. Maresea, 266 F. 713 , 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1920): “Whenever an officer of the court has in his possession or under his control books or papers, or (by parity of reasoning) any other articles in which the court has official interest, and of which any person (whether party to a pending litigation or not) has been unlawfully deprived, that person may petition the court for restitution. This I take to be an elementary principle, depending upon the inherent disciplinary power of any court of record. “Attorneys are officers of the court, and the United States attorney does not by taking office escape from this species of professional discipline. Thus power to entertain this motion depends on the fact that the party proceeded against is an attorney, not that he is an official known as the United States Attorney. It is further true that the right to move does not at all depend on the existence of this indictment; it might be made, were no prosecution pending.” 15”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““On the face of the petition in the present case, and certainly on the evidence offered by petitioner at the hearing before the district court, it is clear that the evidence in question did not come into the possession of the government officials in violation of petitioner’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. He voluntarily turned over the evidence, and made the disclosures, to the agents of the Internal Revenue Bureau, for the purpose oí a determination of his income tax liabilities.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * it has long been accepted that where evidence, obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is in the hands of a United States Attorney, a federal district court may entertain and grant relief on a petition, filed even prior to any indictment, seeking a return of the papers or property unconstitutionally seized and the suppression of the same as evidence.” 198 F.2d at 385-386 .”
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.