Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 54 - United States v. Vargas

United States v. Vargas’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 54 · 1980

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2020

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

11019801990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952

Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Marron v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

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

  1. “The use of a ruse by the agents to gain admission to [an] apartment after the issuance of [a search] warrant was fully justified. Given the huge amount of pure cocaine known to be in the apartment and the presence of innocent children, it was wise to avoid a possible resort to violence. Even absent a warrant, stratagem or deception utilized to obtain evidence is generally permissible. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 , 208-09, 87 S.Ct. 424 , 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966). Moreover, before even entering the apartment the agents announced their identity and purpose.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “was sufficiently specific to permit the rational exercise of judgment [by the executing officers] in selecting what items to seize.”
    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.