United States v. Robles’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.3d 1 · 1995
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States v. Flores-Montano (2004), United States v. Upham (1999)
27 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Maine District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Ross · Texas v. Brown · Sedillo v. United States · Horton 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Law enforcement agents may seize evidence in plain view during a lawful search even though the items seized are not included within the scope of the warrant. To fall within the “plain view” doctrine, a seizure must satisfy two criteria: first, the officers’ presence at the point of discovery must be lawful, and second, the item’s evidentiary value must be immediately apparent to the searchers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bilida v. McCleod
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.