United States v. Streifel’s Empirical Analysis
665 F.2d 414 · 1981
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983), United States v. Alfonso (1985)
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Cortez
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.
“reasonable suspicion, based on articulable, objective facts”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... no basis for denying the government the use of investigatory stops at sea in the fact that many vessels include living quarters for their owners or their crew. While one has a more legitimate expectation of privacy in one’s living quarters than in other areas, this expectation has greater relevance to the scope of a search than to the intrusiveness of a stop.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“if the boarding had been unreasonable under the Constitution, permission from a foreign sovereign could not cure the constitutional infirmity.” Streifel, 665 F.2d at 420 n. 8. We find Conroy to be inapposite here. The Conroy court stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.