Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 F.2d 554 - United States v. Flom

United States v. Flom’s Empirical Analysis

464 F.2d 554 · 1972

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
September 1975
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Murray 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Government proved that Flom and his longtime friend Daniel Atkinson went to Mexico together. While separated from Flom, Atkinson purchased heroin and secreted it in his body. The men reentered the United States on foot, and were detained because they were nervous and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Flom had recent needle marks on his arms, but a strip search was negative. A strip and body search of Atkinson revealed the heroin. Viewed most favorably to the Government, the evidence does not support a finding that Flom had possession, actual or constructive, of the heroin, or that he knew it was illegally imported. Atkinson had exclusive control of the heroin. The Government’s evidence may have given rise to the suspicion, but it did not prove that Flom was implicated with Atkinson in the Illegal importation of heroin. Murray v. United States, 403 F.2d 694 , 695-96 (9th Cir. 1968). 3”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.