Myricks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.2d 901 · 1967
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1996 · most notably Delaware v. Prouse (1979), Blachly v. United States (1967)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brinegar v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Rios 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It must recognize, therefore, that Texas has a legitimate interest in the road-worthiness of automobiles which transport, but which can maim and kill. Cf. Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis, 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 267 , 3 A.L.R.3d 1002 . This comprehends both technical fitness of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the machine. After the event it is always too late. The State can practice preventative therapy by reasonable road checks to ascertain whether man and machine meet the legislative determination of fitness. That this requires a momentary stopping of the traveling citizen is not fatal. Nor is it because the inspection may produce the irrefutable proof that the law has just been violated. The purpose of the check is to determine the present, not the past: is the car, is the driver now fit for further driving? In the accommodation of society’s needs to the basic right of citizens to be free from disruption of unrestricted travel by police officers stopping cars in the hopes of uncovering the evidence of non-traffic crimes, cf. Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 ; Clay v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 196 ; Clay v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 298 , cert. denied 355 U.S. 863 , 78 S.Ct. 96 , 2 L.Ed.2d 69 ; Rios v. United States, 1960, 364 U.S. 253 , 80 S.Ct. 1431 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 , the stopping for road checks is reasonable and therefore acceptable. Likewise, an arrest is proper if the check reveals a current violat”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Every person shall have an operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon demand of a magistrate or any officer of a court of competent jurisdiction or any peace officer. * * * Any peace officer may stop and detain any motor vehicle operator for the purpose of determining whether such person has a driver's license as required by this Section."”
2 later decisions 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.