United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.2d 147 · 1979
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Robbins v. California (1981), United States v. Laughman (1980)
65 federal appellate · 14 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)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Carroll v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Chambers v. Maroney · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a particular search may be the functional equivalent of a search at the border if the object of the search has been kept under constant surveillance from the border to the point of search.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[S]earches at an established station near the border, at a point marking the confluence of two or more roads that extend from the border, might be functional equivalents of border searches. For another example, a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Gonzales“When exigencies can be eliminated by the exercise of the authority to immobilize luggage through a warrantless seizure, the warrantless activity must end there, and a warrant is required to search the contents of the luggage, absent some other warrant excusing exigency. Here, the warrantless activity did not cease with the seizure. Therefore, the subsequent warrantless search was invalid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carrasco v. State
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.