United States v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.2d 541 · 1980
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 16 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Young (1984), United States v. Wuagneux (1982)
85 federal appellate · 16 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 286 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Delaware v. Prouse · United States v. Ventresca · Boyd v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is no limitation as to time and there is no description as to what specific records are to be seized.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is now being concealed certain property, namely evidence of a crime, to wit, certain business and billing and medical records of patients of Doctors Abrams, London, Braun, and Abrams, London and Associates, Inc. which show actual medical services performed and fraudulent services claimed to have been performed in a scheme to defraud the United States and to submit false medicare and medicaid claims for payments to the United States or its agents; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 [.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Business records, although they may contain evidence of fraud, do not fall into the category of stolen or contraband goods. The government has cited no case and we have found none in which a seizure of all records was held valid pursuant to a generally worded warrant such as we have here. In the cases we have canvassed where a seizure of records was upheld, there has been some limitation in the warrant as to the records to be seized.”
4 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.