United States v. LeBron’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 533 · 1984
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably United States v. Spilotro (1986), United States v. George (1992)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Texas v. Brown · Marron v. United States · Andresen v. Maryland
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o guidelines [were] provided to guide the officers in their execution of the warrant or to limit their discretion,” and “[n]o means of distinguishing between stolen property and property that is not stolen is delineated; moreover, the distinction is not one that is readily apparent.” Id. at 537 . The constitutional danger of such non-specific directions, the court noted, is that they”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In each of these cases, we held that the records to be seized were described with particularity sufficient to pass constitutional muster. However, in each case the records described are of a specific character. The reference in the warrant to the specific illegal activity that the records allegedly document gives a substantive limitation to the investigating officer’s exercise of discretion when executing the warrant. Records of narcotic sales, manufacturing and distribution of drugs, and a credit transaction business all provide a particularized description and inherent guidelines, which are clearly absent here. Had the warrant limited the records to be seized to those documenting transactions regarding the items specifically described in the warrant, we would not be presented with the present difficulty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“other property, description unknown, for which there exists probable cause to believe it to be stolen”
2 later decisions 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.