Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 F.2d 879 - Shea v. Gabriel

Shea v. Gabriel’s Empirical Analysis

520 F.2d 879 · 1975

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Hubbard (1980), Sovereign News Co. v. United States (1982)

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

24019751980199020002010decided

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. § 1955

Relies on United States v. Calandra · Di Bella v. United States · United States v. Ryan · Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.

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

  1. “(e) Motion for Return of Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that he is entitled to lawful possession of the property which was illegally seized. The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted the property shall be restored and it shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial. If a motion for return of property is made or comes on for hearing in the district of trial after an indictment or information is filed, it shall be treated also as a motion to suppress under Rule 12.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “1) The government’s interest in secrecy to protect an ongoing investigation; 2) Whether a prima facie showing of probable cause has been made; 3) Whether the movant may reassert the claim, should the government’s delay become unreasonable; and 4) The movant’s entitlement to lawful possession of the items.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(w)hen at the time of (the) ruling there is outstanding a complaint, or a detention or release on bail following arrest, or an arraignment, information, or indictment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.