United States v. Jacob’s Empirical Analysis
657 F.2d 49 · 1981
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Wuagneux (1982), United States v. Christine (1982)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Marron v. United States · Andresen v. Maryland · United States v. Abrams
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fact that the warrant circumscribed the ambit of seizable documents by category and time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is true, as the government points out, that courts have approved warrants describing the things to be seized in generic terms but, in most instances, the material to be seized was contraband or stolen property (citations omitted). We found the generic description sufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment where the affidavits established that goods described in generic terms were likely to have been stolen and constituted a dominant part of the goods on the premises (citations omitted)____ [W]here the property is of a specified character and that character is contra band, a description in terms of its character is sufficient____ Business records, although they may contain evidence of fraud, do not fall into the category of stolen or contraband goods.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Petitioner also suggests that the specific list of the documents to be seized constitutes a “general warrant.” We disagree. Under investigation was a complex real estate scheme whose existence could be proved only by piecing together many bits of evidence. Like a jigsaw puzzle, the whole “picture” of petitioner’s false pretenses scheme with respect to Lot 13 T would be shown only by placing in the proper place the many pieces of evidence that, taken singly, would show comparatively little. The complexity of an illegal scheme may not be used as a shield to avoid detection when the State has demonstrated probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe that evidence of this crime is in the suspect’s possession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.