Weaver v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
374 F.2d 878 · 1967
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably United States v. Warner (1971), United States v. Gipson (1977)
90 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 2318
Relies on Weeks v. United States · Elkins v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Cooper v. State of California · Dardi 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whoever receives, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any motor vehicle or aircraft, moving as, or which is a part of, or which constitutes interstate or foreign commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of our ruling that the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained from an independent, lawful source, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the visual search by Lou- derman was illegal or not. However, the method which Agent Louderman used to obtain the public identification number of the vehicle was nothing more than a routine questioning of a person arrested from out of the state. His subsequent checking of the number of the vehicle was mere routine. In this highly motorized age with millions of vehicles traversing the nation’s highways and the mounting number of automobile thefts and related crimes, it would tax the imagination if we were to consider under these circumstances [emphasis added] that a visual inspection by an FBI agent of a car identification number constituted a search, much less an illegal search. The Fourth Amendment constitutional prohibition is against unreasonable [emphasis in original] searches and seizures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“viewing the evidence presented most favorable to the Government, a reasonable-minded jury could accept the relevant and admissible evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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.