Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.2d 1 - United States v. Sherwin

United States v. Sherwin’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.2d 1 · 1976

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
10
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Spilotro (1986), United States v. Black (1985)

81 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states

45019761980199020002010decided

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. § 1462

Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Matlock · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Sedillo v. United States · Burdeau v. McDowell

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

  1. “[a] private person cannot act unilaterally as an agent or instrument of the state; there must be some degree of governmental knowledge and acquiescence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In defining a private search, the Supreme Court has stated that the fourth amendment applies only if the private party “in light of all circumstances of the case must be regarded as having acted as an ‘instrument’ or agent of the state.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 487, 91 S.Ct. at 2049. Application of this definition will frequently require a careful factual analysis.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property,' " Warden v. Hayden, 1967, 387 U.S. 294 , 304, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1648, 18 L.Ed.2d 782, . . . "(e)ven when there is a governmental seizure, suppression as evidence may not be the proper remedy if only property rights are affected and there has been no governmental invasion of privacy.”
    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.