Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 502 F.2d 391 - United States v. Pryba

United States v. Pryba’s Empirical Analysis

502 F.2d 391 · 1974

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

72 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Illinois v. Andreas (1983), New York v. P. J. Video, Inc. (1986)

72 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 13 states

95019741980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas

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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is rooted in the rule of the common law that common carriers have the right to decline shipment of packages proffered in circumstances indicating contents of a suspicious, indeed of a possibly dangerous, nature. Justification for the carrier’s refusal is to be found in the exigencies of safeguarding life and property, and undeniably the frustration of criminality is likewise a worthy carrier endeavor. The imperatives of either objective may warrant inquiry by the carrier as to the contents of a parcel tendered for shipment; they may suffice, too, to justify a reasonable inspection of the parcel to fulfill that purpose.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where the search is made at the behest of or with the assistance of law enforcement officers, there must be probable cause, and in appropriate instances an authorizing warrant, if the search is to pass constitutional merits. But where the search is made on the carrier’s own initiative for its own purposes, Fourth Amendment protections do not obtain for the reason that only the activities of individuals or nongovernmental entities are involved. So frequently and so emphatically have the courts enunciated and applied these principles that, at least for the time being they must be regarded as settled law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If such a seizure is pursuant to a warrant, issued after a determination of probable cause by a neutral magistrate, and, following the seizure, a prompt judicial determination of the obscenity issue in an adversary proceeding is available at the request of any interested party the seizure is constitutionally permissible.”
    3 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.