United States v. Schuster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““We perceive no valid reason to invalidate Agent Bowron’s seizure of the counterfeit $100 bill. Poteat and Bowron entered the apartment together. At Poteat’s direction, Bowron went directly to the specified location, lifted the identified roll of toilet tissue, and retrieved the designated sample $100 bill.” (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Jenkins · 89 Md. App. 385 - Baith v. State

2. “The defendant, Edward Allen Schuster, challenged the warrantless search of his girlfriend’s apartment' which produced evidence eventually leading to his arrest for possession and distribution of counterfeit currency, 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 473. He additionally contests the validity of his subsequent arrest, the probable cause for which was based in part on the evidence seized from his girlfriend’s apartment. It was March 19, 1979, when Charles Poteat contacted the United States Secret Service in Miami, Florida, to inform them that the defendant, Edward Schus-ter, had told him that he had access to counterfeit $100 bills which would be available for sale. At that time Poteat worked for Schuster at a hotel pool. Agent Capaso, who had received Poteat’s call, relayed the information to Agent Bowron, who subsequently became the focus of the consent issue. Agent Bow-ron met with Poteat that afternoon, arranged for Poteat to secure a sample of the counterfeit money and to tell Schus-ter that he had a buyer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Schuster

3. ““the defendant ‘invited’ the agent into his home and the evidence obtained consisted only of the marijuana purchased by the agent. These facts, the defendant contends, do not involve a search and therefore alleviate any concern over a warrant. The defendant is correct to that extent. Virtually all cases are factually distinguishable, but that does not vitiate the underlying rule of law to be derived from Lewis.” (underlining in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 89 Md. App. 385 - Baith v. State