United States v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 968 · 1975
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Yarbrough (1988), United States v. Dubrofsky (1978)
14 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Matlock · Harrington v. California · Stoner v. California
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e attribute special significance to the fact that Murphy delivered the key to Tucker. We conclude that Tucker's custody of the key gave him sufficient dominion over the premises to enable him to grant the necessary consent. Since Murphy himself put the premises under the immediate and complete control of Tucker, who voluntarily consented to the search we hold that the search was not unreasonable. [at 530]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We reject [defendant's] naive contention that his confession of illegal drug trafficking would probably have been valid if he had been confronted with only [ ] 880 pounds of marijuana ..., but when the illegally seized amphetamines and 400 pounds of marijuana were added to the pot, his confession became the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' and 'the product' of the illegally seized contraband.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rogers
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.