Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 F.2d 979 - United States v. Meyer

United States v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

656 F.2d 979 · 1981

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
4
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably United States v. Sangineto-Miranda (1988), United States v. Hartley (1982)

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

4101981199020002010decided

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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Alderman v. United States · United States v. Salvucci · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · United States v. Haydel

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

  1. “[w]hile an ownership or possessory interest is not necessarily required, the mere legitimate presence on the searched premises by invitation or otherwise, is insufficient in itself to create a protecti-ble expectation. A defendant must also establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched in order for a fourth amendment challenge to be allowed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “although Tobin may have had an expectation of privacy in the [pockets of the] suits he allegedly left in the closet, in the [closed] shave kit he allegedly left somewhere in the house and [in] the sealed boxes he allegedly left in the garage, he has failed to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the floor of Ackerson’s garage or [in] the shower stall in the bathroom.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A defendant must also establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched in order for a Fourth Amendment challenge to be allowed.”
    2 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.