Corngold v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 1 · 1966
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 8 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974), United States v. Davis (1973)
132 federal appellate · 8 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 25 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. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1595 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 482 · 39 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Brinegar v. United States · Jones 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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It would be difficult to justify any conclusion other than that the TWA employee participated in the search solely to serve the purposes of the government. No doubt both the customs agents and the TWA transportation agent relied upon the inspection clause in TWA's tariff and the act of TWA's agent in cutting open the outside package to furnish technical legal justification for the search. But as we have noted, the TWA employee himself testified that he opened appellant's package only because the government agents asked him to, and there is nothing else in the record which would indicate that the package was in fact opened for any purpose of the carrier * * *."”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The officers had no warrant, and there were no circumstances which might have justified a search without one. No arrest was made to which a search without a warrant might be incident. The government made no showing that the packages might be removed before a warrant could be obtained. Appellant was not threatening to remove them, nor was the airline, except under such conditions as the officers saw fit to impose. From the time appellant left the packages with the carrier in Los Angeles they were subject to the effective control of the customs agents. There was nothing to prevent the agents from securing a warrant on a proper showing, either before the packages were shipped from Los Angeles or after they arrived in New York. On this record, search without a warrant was not justified even if the customs agents had probable cause to believe the packages contained contraband. .” P.3. (Emphasis supplied.) (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellant contends that the walls of his apartment were ‘penetrated’ and his apartment was searched by means of the scintillation detector in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that it was error to admit evidence obtained in this way. “The agents entered the apartment building through an unlocked public entrance. They employed the scintillator in public hallways outside appellant’s apartment. Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ] (1942), is controlling authority that appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. See also On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 , 752-754, [ 72 S.Ct. 967 , 96 L.Ed. 1270 ] (1952).””
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.