United States v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.2d 765 · 1982
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably United States v. Peterson (1987), United States v. Humphrey (1985)
33 federal appellate · 1 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 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 880 (§ 510 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 955A · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Delaware v. Prouse · Boyd v. United States · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · Rideout v. United States · Scott 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We assume that the administrative plan which led to the stop of the GLOBE TROTTER was motivated partly by suspicion of drug smuggling. However, the stop and search had an independent administrative justification, and did not exceed in scope what was permissible under that administrative justification. Therefore, we need not consider any criminal enforcement interest the Coast Guard may have had.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any subsequent intrusion caused by the Coast Guard was supported by probable cause and is not relevant to our analysis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance ....”
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.