United States v. Grill’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 990 · 1973
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably United States v. Morgan (1991), State v. Nelson (1979)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Cataldo v. United States · United States v. Lipscomb · United States v. Edwards · Evalt v. United States · United States v. Tisnado
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The underpinning of these cases is that the items in question have been exposed to police view under unobjectionable circumstances, so that no reasonable expectation of privacy is breached by an officer's taking a second look at matter with respect to which expectation of privacy already has been at least partially dissipated.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The so-called ‘inventory searches’ can, of course, be employed as subterfuges and can be the subject of abuse. It is temptingly simplistic to employ the phrase ‘inventory’ as though uttering it solves everything, and all too easy to state overbroadly the interests which ‘inventory searches’ vindicate, and to automatically give to those interests a primacy which, in the balance between public and private interest, they do not necessarily enjoy.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.