Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 F.2d 208 - O'Reilly v. United States

O'Reilly v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

486 F.2d 208 · 1973

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
4
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably United States v. Rich (1975), United States v. Walker (1990)

35 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

2301973198019902000decided

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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Cooper v. State of California · Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · Johnson 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The exceptions under subsection 4 dealing with ‘probable cause’ would be self-defeating if they meant that process to seize property is not required in every case where the property has been used in violation of the Act. If the process requirement has any meaning it must be that process is necessary unless there exists probable cause that Section 881(a) is being contemporaneously violated and the exigencies of the surrounding circumstances make the requirement of obtaining process to seize the vehicle unreasonable and unnecessary.” (Emphasis in original.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nce the car was legally seized, pursuant to the federal forfeiture statute, the arresting officers were entitled to inventory the contents of the car and take possession of the items found therein.”
    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.