United States v. Alloway’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 105 · 1968
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably United States v. Heldt (1981), United States v. Kopituk (1982)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Ventresca · Johnson v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“let the John Alloways know that this type of conduct will not be tolerated,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Hayden , the Supreme Court said: The ‘mere evidence’ limitation has spawned exceptions so numerous and confusion so great, in fact, that it is questionable whether it affords meaningful protection. But if its rejection does enlarge the area of permissible searches, the intrusions are nevertheless made after fulfilling the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment and after the intervention of ‘a neutral and detached magistrate. * * * ’ The Fourth Amendment allows intrusions upon privacy under these circumstances, and there is no viable reason to distinguish intrusions to secure ‘mere evidence’ from intrusion to secure fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bell v. State““(b) Property Which May Be Seized with a Warrant. A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense; ... or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense.””
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.