United States v. Spetz’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 1457 · 1983
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably United States v. Castillo (1988), United States v. Feldman (1986)
74 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 19 U.S.C. § 1461 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Carroll 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A validly conducted dog sniff can supply the probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by the application for the warrant.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Any property subject to civil forfeiture to the United States under this subchapter may be seized by the Attorney General upon process issued pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims by any district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the property, except that seizure without such process may be made when— (1)the seizure is incident to an arrest or a search under a search warrant or an inspection under an administrative inspection warrant; (2) the property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the United States in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding under this subchapter; (3) the Attorney General has probable cause to believe that the property is directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety; or (4) the Attorney General has probable cause to believe that the property is subject to civil forfeiture under this subchapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.”
2 later decisions 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.