United States v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.3d 702 · 2014
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1081 · 18 U.S.C. § 1084 · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Spinelli v. United States · Ornelas v. United States · Neder v. United States · Solem v. Helm · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The presence of a signature provides easy and reliable proof that a warrant was in fact issued. An officer who observes that a warrant is unsigned might not be assured that it was actually issued, and might execute it at his peril if he has no other good reason to believe the warrant was issued. And when, as here, the warrant is not signed, proof of issuance becomes more involved and less certain. In many circumstances, the magistrate or judge may not recall reviewing or issuing the warrant by the time his belated signature is sought. For these reasons, we are confident that police will continue to have ample incentive to secure signatures. In any event, we find no sufficient reason to read a signature requirement into the Fourth Amendment, and we leave to any future revisers of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) whether to adopt such a presently-omitted requirement for search warrants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have not decided what happens when a general sufficiency objection is accompanied by specific objections, but we have suggested, albeit in dictum, that such a practice preserves all possible objections because: “[i]t is helpful to the trial judge to have specific concerns explained even where a general motion is made; ánd to penalize the giving of examples, which might be understood as abandoning all other grounds, discourages defense counsel from doing so and also creates a trap for the unwary defense lawyer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“some evidence at trial showed that [the defendants' business] also accepted bets on casino games and other forms of gambling not covered by the Wire Act.”
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.