United States v. Krapf’s Empirical Analysis
285 F.2d 647 · 1960
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Wilson M. Smith, Jr. v. United States of America, Raymond Bowden v. United States (1963), United States v. Riggs (1973)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 49 U.S.C. § 322
Relies on In re Neagle · Cunningham v. Neagle · United States v. Kelly · United States v. Amorosa · Riss & Co. 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Initially, it should be pointed out that fingerprinting is not a punishment. It is a means of identification which is useful in many circumstances some of which relate to the enforcement of our laws. Unless the burdens that this procedure places on the individual are unreasonable, therefore, it will be upheld as one of those annoyances that must be suffered for the common good.” 285 F.2d at 650-651 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Any restraint of the person may be burdensome. But some burdens must be borne for the good of the community. The slight interference with the person involved in finger printing seems to us one which must be borne in the common interest. “Finger printing seems to be no more than an extension of methods of identification long used in dealing with persons under arrest for real or supposed violations of the criminal laws. It is known to be a very certain means devised by modern science to reach the desired end ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Raines“[i]n discharging his duties as a Marshal he acts concurrently as an officer of the federal judiciary and as an executive officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garland v. Sullivan
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.