Simpson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.2d 291 · 1965
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1987 · most notably Rakas v. Illinois (1979), Cotton v. United States (1967)
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 2234 · 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Draper v. United States · Weeks 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of all defendants prosecuted for automobile theft, only those who actually owned the automobiles could raise Fourth Amendment objections successfully. Moreover, the proof of ownership would be sufficient to quash the prosecution for theft of the automobile. These constitutional rights belong to the guilty as well as the innocent, (citation omitted). The sole prerequisite to a defendant’s raising the Fourth Amendment issue is that he claims a proprietary or possessory interest in the searched or seized property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Possibly what I am saying is that the obtaining of a serial number from a motor vehicle is not a search at. all. If it is not, we reach the same result as though it were a reasonable search within the meaning of the Constitution. It is no answer to say that a rule contrary to that adopted here would permit an indiscreet officer to promiscuously search automobiles with immunity and that the laws must apply equally to the guilty as to those who are not guilty. If a search of an automobile is made without probable cause, one having the right to complain may recover damages and suppress any incriminating evidence which is seized. Such remedies are equally available to a guilty person, provided he has the right to question the search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The same element in this prosecution which has caused a dilemma, i.e., that possession both convicts and confers standing, eliminates any necessity for a preliminary showing of an interest in the premises searched or the property seized, which ordinarily is required when standing is challenged. . . . The possession on the basis of which petitioner is to be and was convicted suffices to give him standing under any fair and rational conception of the requirements of Rule 41 (e).” 9”
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.