Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 U.S. 814 - Von Cleef v. New Jersey

Von Cleef v. New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

98 federal appellate · 9 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (1972), United States v. Johnson (1982)

98 federal appellate · 9 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 15 states

130019691970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Chimel v. California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Harris v. United States · Abel v. United States · Desist 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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This challenge would unquestionably be well founded if today’s decision in Chimel v. California, ante, [395 U.S.] p. 752 [ 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 ], were given retroactive application. But we need not decide here whether Chimel should be applied retroactively.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Kremen simply prohibits the police from seizing the entire contents of a building indiscriminately, without considering whether the property they take is relevant to the crime under investigation; it does not bar the removal of all property that may reasonably be considered evidence of crime.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““This challenge would unquestionably be well founded if today’s decision in Chimel v. California, ante, [395 U.S.] p. 752 [ 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 ], were given retroactive application.” See also Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818 , 89 S.Ct. 2053 , 23 L.Ed.2d 732 .”
    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.