McDowell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
383 F.2d 599 · 1967
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 1992 · most notably 71 Cal. 2d 1096 - People v. Edwards (1969), Wattenburg v. United States (1968)
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 18 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 16 U.S.C. § 704 · 16 U.S.C. § 707
Relies on Jones v. United States · See v. City of Seattle · Sherman v. United States · Hester v. United States · Griffin v. California
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While it is well established that the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to the curtilage, at no time was the dwelling of appellant Bryce McDowell, or the curtilage surrounding that dwelling, invaded for the purposes of a search. . . . "The only time the federal game agents were within the curtilage of the farm buildings of Mr. McDowell . . . the agents merely recorded the names of those persons coming out of the north field and visually observed their clothing. This did not constitute a search, and no seizures for the purposes of obtaining evidence took place within the curtilage." 383 F.2d at 603 . (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellants next contend that the trial court erred in denying appellants' motions for judgments of acquittal on the grounds of entrapment of appellants by the United States government agents. This contention is without foundation in the record before us. Unlawful entrapment has been defined as the "solicitation of an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime solely for the purpose of prosecution." ... It occurs only when the criminal conduct was the result of "creative activity" on the part of law-enforcement officers. ... The record here is absolutely void of any evidence that the federal game agents solicited, inspired, incited, persuaded, or otherwise prompted the appellants to bait the fields in question or hunt over the baited fields. On the contrary, the agents maintained a completely passive role merely observing the fields in question, and at no time did "creative activity" on their part contribute to the violation of which appellants were convicted. Therefore, the trial court properly denied appellants' motions for judgments of acquittal. There was no evidence to justify the defense of entrapment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Supreme Court has recently expanded the Fourth Amendment protection of the business enterprise, See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 , 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967), it has not expanded such protection beyond that which a private dwelling and the curtilage thereof is likewise entitled. Therefore, a search of open fields, without a search warrant, even if such fields are construed as part of a commercial enterprise, is not constitutionally 'unreasonable.”
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.