Lord v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Hunsucker v. Phinney (1974), Lafayette Academy Inc United States (1979)
34 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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. § 7602
Relies on Jones v. United States · Di Bella v. United States · Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States · Rea v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Maxcy
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The owner of the records is entitled to be as well off as if Flattery had not unlawfully seized those papers, but he is not entitled to be any better off.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure or by the deprivation of property may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that such person is entitled to lawful possession of the property. The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted, the property shall be returned to the movant, although reasonable conditions may be imposed to protect access and use of the property in subsequent proceedings. If a motion for return of property is made or comes on for hearing in the district of trial after an indictment or information is filed, it shall be treated also as a motion to suppress under Rule 12.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It might have been thought better not to embrace within ... anomalous jurisdiction ... any alleged unlawful seizures by federal enforcement officers____ [I]t might be sufficient for the aggrieved person to be left with an objection to the introduction of the seized property or its fruits in evidence in any administrative, civil, or criminal trial. However, it seems to this Court that the Supreme Court either has extended or will extend the anomalous jurisdiction so as to reach unlawful seizures by a federal agent connected with the enforcement of law, who should have observed “standards for law enforcement” established by “the federal Rules governing searches and seizures.””
1 later decision 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.