United States v. Shelby’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.2d 971 · 1978
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably State v. Hempele (1990), United States v. Terry (1983)
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Brown v. Illinois · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Williams v. People of State of New York
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n the real world to so view the status of one's discarded trash is totally unrealistic, unreasonable, and in complete disregard of the mechanics of its disposal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the real world to so view the status of one’s discarded trash is totally unrealistic, unreasonable, and in complete disregard of the mechanics of its disposal. In our view the placing of trash in the garbage cans at the time and place for anticipated collection by public employees for hauling to a public dump signifies abandonment____ The contents of the cans could not reasonably be expected by defendant to be secure, nor entitled to respectful, confidential and careful handling on the way to the dump. Trash generally is not so highly regarded____ It is common knowledge, at times due to the unfortunate circumstances of some persons or even just for curiosity or mischief, that others may disturb one’s trash. The defendant admitted that this had happened on occasion but argues that it is irrelevant. We believe it should at least have served to remind the defendant of the unreliability of any thought of privacy he may have had about his trash. It therefore seems to be more prudent to put only genuine trash, not secrets, in garbage cans[.] [Footnotes omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cans could not reasonably be expected by defendant to be secure, nor entitled to respectful, confidential and carefully handling on the way to the dump. Trash generally is not so highly regarded.”
2 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.