Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This leads us to the critical legal issue which is whether a joint tenant or resident of an apartment has authority to consent to the entry and search thereof. This court and other courts have held that where there are multiple lawful residents of a premises, any one of such persons may give permission to enter and that if incriminating evidence is found, it may be used against all. In Drummond v. United States, supra, [ 350 F.2d 983 ] we cite supporting authorities and summarize the applicable law as follows: “ ‘One having equal authority over premises may authorize a search of them. [Citations]’ “We adhere to the position taken in the cases just cited and hold that the officers entered the apartment and took the evidence sought to be suppressed with the voluntary consent of Summers and that Summers had a lawful right to occupy and use the apartment and permit others to enter it. “Defendant relies upon landlord and tenant cases such as Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 , 81 S.Ct. 776 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 828 , and hotel clerk cases like Stoner v. State of California, 376 U.S. 483 , 84 S.Ct. 889 , 11 L.Ed.2d 856 . Such cases are readily distinguishable from joint occupancy cases like our present case for the reasons pointed out in Drummond, supra, and Maxwell v. Stephens, 8 Cir., 348 F.2d 325, 336-338 . “Defendant’s contention that there can be no valid search without a warrant, absent an emergency situation, is refuted by United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 64, 66 , 70 S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Freese

2. “In Wright v. United States, 389 F.2d 996 (8th Cir.), this appears: "`Not every error occurring in the course of a trial requires a reversal. Rule 52(a), Fed.R. Crim.P., provides that errors which do not affect substantive rights shall be disregarded. If upon the record as a whole, the reviewing court is certain that the asserted error did not influence the jury or had but slight effect, the verdict and judgment shall stand. (Citations)' "The case is Affirmed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lawrence