Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 143 - United States v. Glassel

United States v. Glassel’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 143 · 1973

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
15
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry Brulay (1975), United States v. Miller (1982)

54 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 15 states

37019731980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Miller v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Sabbath 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]n officer may legitimately obtain an invitation into a house by misrepresenting his identity * * *. If he is invited inside, he does not need probable cause to enter, he does not need a warrant, and, quite obviously, he does not need to announce his authority and purpose. Once inside the house, he cannot exceed the scope of his invitation by ransacking the house generally, * * * but he may seize anything in plain view.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “would be natural in even the most hardened of criminals”
    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.