United States v. Schafer’s Empirical Analysis
461 F.2d 856 · 1972
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2005 · most notably United States v. Davis (1973), Latta v. Fitzharris (1975)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360A (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · See v. City of Seattle · Abel v. United States · United States v. Biswell · Frank v. Maryland
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Here, however, the time element is a major consideration. The objects of the search (quarantined fruits, vegetables, and plants) can easily be transported out of Hawaii to the continental United States by departing tourists. The effect of such movement on agricultural crops in the mainland states could be serious, as each of the quarantined items may carry some form of plant disease or insect which could destroy crops in the other areas. The purpose of the quarantine is to avoid these effects by preventing the movement of the potentially dangerous plant substances. We think a search warrant requirement would ‘frustrate’ the purpose of these inspections, because of the time delays inherent in the search warrant mechanism. * * * Whereas, in Camara there was no suggestion that ‘fire, health, and housing code inspection code programs could not achieve their goals within the confines of a reasonable search warrant requirement,’ [ 387 U.S. at 533 , 87 S.Ct. at 1733 ] we are persuaded that requiring warrants for agricultural inspections of this type would effectively cripple any meaningful quarantine. [Citation omitted].” 461 F.2d at 858 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bailey · Barusch v. Calvo“'whether the authority to search should be evidenced by a warrant, which in turn depends in part upon whether the burden of obtaining a warrant is likely to frustrate the governmental purpose of the search'.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is doubtful that any other canvassing technique would achieve acceptable results,”
2 later decisions 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.