Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 1077 - Charles Chavis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Charles Chavis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 1077 · 1973

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
5
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2019

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

4019731980199020002010decided

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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · United States v. Lipscomb · United States v. Tisnado · United States v. Pennington · Brett 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We agree with the district court that Officer Chamberlain did not find the heroin as a result of a search for evidence against Chavis. He inadvertently found the heroin as a result of an inventory of the clothing that he was duty bound to keep as evidence of a crime. Personal effects in the clothing required protection for the benefit of Chavis. Officer Chamberlain could not send the clothing off in the custody of others without knowing what was to be returned. The only reasonable method for such safekeep ing was to inventory the contents. That was plainly the real purpose of the inventory undertaken here. Finding the heroin was simply an unanticipated result. See, United States v. Pennington, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 249 ; United States v. Lipscomb, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 795 .””
    1 later decision 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.