Illinois v. Andreas’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
281 federal appellate · 56 district · 484 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,087 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Horton v. California (1990), United States v. Jacobsen (1984)
281 federal appellate · 56 district · 484 state decisions — followed in 43 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Payton v. New York
Cited together with Katz v. United States · Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Jacobsen · Texas v. Brown · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 1,087 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The lawful discovery by common carriers or customs officers of contraband in transit presents law enforcement authorities with an opportunity to identify and prosecute the person or persons responsible for the movement of the contraband. To accomplish this, the police, rather than simply seizing the contraband and destroying it, make a so-called controlled delivery of the container to its consignee, allowing the container to continue its journey to the destination contemplated by the parties. The person dealing in the contraband can then be identified upon taking possession of and asserting dominion over the container.”
40 later decisions quote this exact passage“where law enforcement authorities are cooperating in an investigation ... the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he police officer must lawfully make an "initial intrusion" or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area.... ... "[P]lain view" provides grounds for seizure of an item when an officer's access to an object has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Gardner · Shepard v. State
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.