Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 F.3d 1301 - Lesser Lsr v. Espy

Lesser Lsr v. Espy’s Empirical Analysis

34 F.3d 1301 · 1994

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably 127 Wash. 2d 460 - State v. Mierz (1995), 135 S. Ct. 2443 - City of L. A. v. Patel (2015)

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

110199420002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 657 (§ 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 30 U.S.C. § 813 · 7 U.S.C. § 2131 (Animal Welfare Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 2132 · 7 U.S.C. § 2133 · 7 U.S.C. § 2140 · 7 U.S.C. § 2143 · 7 U.S.C. § 2146

Relies on Payton v. New York · Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. · Wickard v. Filburn · New York v. Burger · United States v. Biswell

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

  1. “(1) The New York statute in question alerted automobile junkyard owners that their commercial premises would be subject to periodic inspections pursuant to the statute; (2) the statute set forth the scope of the inspection and notified the operator as to who was authorized to conduct an inspection; and (3) the statute limited the time, place, and scope of the inspections.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[O]nce an individual begins to receive distinctive treatment without apparent justification (such as more inspections than the regular schedule would indicate) oversight such as that provided by the warrant process may be required to assure that the inspected's Fourth Amendment guarantees are met.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the size of the business of the person involved, 5 the gravity of the violation, the person's good faith, and the history of previous violations.”
    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.