United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 511 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Virginia Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Whren v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · United States v. Ross
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the warrant identifies the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes and when the description of the items leaves nothing to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate 'plain-view' seizures, it is not a necessary condition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MOONEY v. STATE · Mooney v. State“J.A. 56; 66-did not authorize the seizure of the Nazi and white supremacist items, both because they were not included within the warrant's language and because he was not being investigated for a hate crime. The district court rejected Young's arguments, concluding that the items fell within the scope of the search warrant's expansive language.”
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.