United States v. Cotterman’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.3d 952 · 2013
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1583 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Carroll v. United States · Ornelas 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]lectronic devices ... capable of storing warehouses full of information.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]ntrusiveness includes both the extent of a search as well as the degree of indignity that may accompany a search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. Time and again, we have stated that “searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.” Congress, since the beginning of our Government, “has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.” The modem statute that authorized the search in this case, 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (a), derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, § 31, 1 Stat. 164 , and reflects the “impressive historical pedigree” of the Government’s power and interest. It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.