United States v. Lopez’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Leon · Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · Arizona v. Gant · Herring v. United States
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]ur opinion [in Belton ] has been widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.... As Justice O’Connor observed [in Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 624, 628, 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004) (opinion concurring in part) ], “lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of [Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) ].” Justice Scalia has similarly noted that, ... cases allowing a search in “this precise factual scenario ... are legion.” Thornton, 541 U.S. at 628 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 (quoting and opinion concurring in judgment).”
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.