Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 Wash. App. 228 - State v. Quick

59 Wash. App. 228 - State v. Quick’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1467 (Tariff Act of 1930)

Relies on United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · United States v. Ramsey · United States v. Ortiz · United States v. Alfonso

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

  1. “In determining whether a search occurred at the functional equivalent of the border, courts acknowledge the government’s interest in searching those who cross international borders, yet they seek also to ensure that customs officials do not violate the constitutional rights of domestic travelers. Accordingly, though they employ somewhat different tests, federal courts uniformly require the government to demonstrate that the contraband or person seized has crossed an international border.”
    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.