United States v. Crouch’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 932 · 1981
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably United States v. Doherty (1989), United States v. Rhodes (1985)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Marron v. United States · United States v. Ochs · Mapp v. Warden, New York State Correctional Institution for Women · United States v. Presler · United States v. Haynie
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We attach no significance to the fact that some cursory reading of the letters was necessary in order to establish their nature. In United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247 (2d Cir.1979), Judge Friendly noted that ‘(a) number of courts, including this one, have upheld without much discussion the seizure of documents during an otherwise valid search as in “plain view” notwithstanding the fact that some perusal, generally fairly brief, of the documents was clearly necessary in order for the police to perceive the relevance of the document to crime.’ 595 F.2d at 1257, note 8 . In that case, the Second Circuit upheld the plain view seizure of certain index cards which in fact were loansharking records, regardless of the fact that police were obliged to take note of their contents before their incriminating nature became apparent. Similarly, in Mapp v. Warden, 531 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir.1976), on facts nearly indistinguishable from those here, the same circuit held that certain rent receipts were properly seized as in plain view even though their incriminating nature was only apparent after police noticed a suspicious name on them. The court stated that ‘it would be somewhat absurd to require an investigator to be oblivious to that which would be apparent to anyone else with normal powers of observation.’ 531 F.2d at 1172. We have noted with approval the rule in Ochs and Mapp, supra, that the brief perusal of an item does not render its incriminating nature any the less immediately apparen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of an item does not render its incriminating nature any the less immediately apparent. Id. , at 933. 5 Although the Solicitor General argues in his response to the petition for certiorari that the search/reading of the letters was within the scope of the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of the letters was necessary to establish their incriminating nature. Even though there was nothing incriminating about the envelopes in which the letters were discovered, the court noted that the agents”
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.