Vance v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.2d 183 · 1982
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency (1987), United States v. Shaw (1983)
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable ground for belief of guilt supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the fourth amendment protects the citizen against invasion of privacy. Once that interest is invaded legally by a [government agent], the citizen has lost his reasonable expectation of privacy to the extent of the invasion. As this court has held repeatedly, additional investigators or officials may therefore enter a citizen’s property after one official has already intruded legally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“plain view doctrine is limited to 'inadvertent discoveries of evidence by police officers acting within the scope of an otherwise justified intrusion.' [Roberts,] 619 F.2d at 381 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. [443, 469, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2040, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crowder v. Sinyard
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.