United States v. Gibbons’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1320 · 1979
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 10 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Wacker (1995), 44 Cal. 3d 480 - People v. Kimble (1988)
68 federal appellate · 10 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 13 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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 879 (§ 509 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States · Monroe v. Pape
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I] t is improper to use the grand jury for the primary purpose of strengthening the Government’s case on a pending indictment or as a substitute for discovery, although this may be an incidental benefit. However, where there is another legitimate purpose behind the grand jury investigation, the proceeding would not be improper merely because the Government may derive an incidental benefit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for the sole or dominant purpose of preparing a pending indictment for trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Bjefore the Fourth Amendment can be implicated there must be governmental action involved. . .; [information derived from a search by a private person who is not acting in collusion with or at the behest of government officials is not subject to Fourth Amendment strictures . . .; [and] such information can be used in obtaining a search warrant without fatally tainting subsequent governmental action. United States v. Gibbons, 607 F.2d 1320,1324 (10th Cir.1979). (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bennett 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.