Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 F.1d 123 - Elrod v. Moss

Elrod v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

278 F. 123 · 1921

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
December 1982
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1982 · most notably Carroll v. United States (1925), United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions

1701921193019401950196019701980decided

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

Relies on Boyd v. United States · Downes v. Bidwell · South Carolina v. United States · In re Quarles · Vogel v. Gruaz

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ When . . . any officer of the law shall discover any person in the act of transporting in violation of the law, intoxicating liquors in any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or. air craft, or other vehicle, it shall be his duty to seize, any and all intoxicating liquors found therein being transported contrary to law. Whenever intoxicating liquors transported or possessed illegally shall be seized by an officer he shall take possession of the vehicle and team or automobile, boat, air or water craft, or any other conveyance, and shall arrest any person in charge thereof.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The protection of the rights of the accused does not require that the Constitution be construed to exact the same degree of particularity of description in search warrants for contraband liquors, because there is no right of property in contraband liquor, and hence there can be no danger to the citizen of being deprived of property which he is lawfully entitled to hold against the state.”
    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.