United States v. Minker’s Empirical Analysis
312 F.2d 632 · 1962
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably United States v. Reicherter (1981), United States v. Anthony M. Grosso, Samuel J. Grosso, Jennie B. Grosso and Joseph Pino. Anthony M. Grosso (1966)
60 federal appellate · 19 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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. § 7201
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Jones v. United States · Spies v. United States · Ingram v. United States · Berra 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Whether a given area is within the protected cur-tilage of one's dwelling depends upon a number of factors, including its proximity to the dwelling, whether it is within the enclosure surrounding the dwelling, and its use as an adjunct to the domestic economy of the family. Care v. United States, 231 F.2d 22 (C.A.10), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 932 , 76 S.Ct. 788 , 100 L.Ed. 1461 (1956). Of course, factors of paramount importance in considering a Fourth Amendment claim are the nature of the individual's interest in and the extent of the claimed privacy of the premises searched. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Abandonment, of course, is largely a question of intent. United States v. Wheeler, 161 F.Supp. 193 , 198 (W.D.Ark., 1958). Intent, in turn, is a question of fact. Schauffler for and on Behalf of N. L. R. B. v. United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing Industry, Local 420, 230 F.2d 572 , 576 (C.A. 3), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 825 , 77 S.Ct. 37 , 1 L.Ed.2d 48 (1956). The district court, in denying the motion to suppress, filed a memorandum opinion in which it fully set forth the facts upon which it based its holding that there had been an abandonment. We need not here again recite them but need only say that they amply support its conclusion. The appellant cites United States v. Merritt, 293 F.2d 742 (C.A. 3, 1961), and Work v. United States. 100 U.S.App.D.C. 237 , 243 F.2d 660 (1957). Those cases are inapposite. In both of them, the acts which revealed the evidence were the direct consequence of an illegal entry. This was true also in Polk v. United States, 291 F.2d 230 (C.A. 9, 1961), although the decision there turned upon whether the area was within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.””
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.