Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 F.2d 404 - Bova v. United States

Bova v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

460 F.2d 404 · 1972

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
January 2005
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2005

17 federal appellate ·

1501972198019902000decided

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. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2514 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Weeks v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Olmstead 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “decisions . . . have failed to adequately discriminate between proceedings for suppression of evidentiary use and for the return of seized things. The grounds justifying one type of relief are not necessarily grounds for the other. For example, when the seizure is of contraband, the owner is not entitled to return even though the seizure was illegal. Per contra goods not in the nature of contraband, which were legally seized, should be returned when their evidentiary utility is exhausted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.