United States v. Bruce’s Empirical Analysis
396 F.3d 697 · 2005
Citation profile
31 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3552 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3602
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington · Katz 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where a warrant adequately describes 'a category of seizable papers,' it is not lacking in specificity merely 'because the officers executing the warrant must exercise some minimal judgment as to whether a particular document falls within the described category.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he degree of specificity in a warrant must be flexible, depending upon the type of items to be seized and the crime involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“papers 'showing ownership and/or control' of illegal drugs,”
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.