Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.2d 814 - United States v. Gregory K. Eisler, United States of America v. Robert Alan Hoff

United States v. Gregory K. Eisler, United States of America v. Robert Alan Hoff’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.2d 814 · 1978

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
15
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Luschen (1980), United States v. King (2000)

29 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 15 states

180197819801990200020102020decided

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 Katz v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hampton v. United States · Tierney Et Al. 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The locks on the doors to the entrances of the apartment complex were to provide security to the occupants, not privacy in common hallways.... An expectation of privacy necessarily implies an expectation that one will be free of any intrusion, not merely unwarranted intrusions. The common hallways of [defendant’s] apartment building were available for the use of residents and their guests, the landlord and his agents, and others having legitimate reasons to be on the premises. That [the DEA agent] was a technical trespasser in a common hallway is of no consequence since appellants had no reasonable expectation that conversations taking place there would be free from intrusion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An expectation of privacy necessarily implies an expectation that one will be free of any intrusion, not merely unwarranted intrusions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The locks on the doors to the entrances of the apartment complex were to provide security to the occupants, not privacy in common hallways ... An expectation of privacy necessarily implies an expectation that one will be free of any intrusion, not merely unwarranted intrusions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.