Voss v. Bergsgaard’s Empirical Analysis
774 F.2d 402 · 1985
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 27 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably United States v. Soto (1993), United States v. Leary (1988)
79 federal appellate · 27 district · 5 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Marron v. United States · Di Bella v. United States · Stanford v. Texas
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The particularity requirement ensures that a search is confined in scope to particularly described evidence relating to a specific crime for which there is demonstrated probable cause.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'makes general searches ... impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.' " Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 , 485, 85 S.Ct. 506, 512, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965) (quoting Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 , 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927)); see also United States v. Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194 , 1199 (10th Cir.1988); Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402 , 404 (10th Cir.1985). "The particularity requirement [also] ensures that a search is confined in scope to particularly described evidence relating to a specific crime for which there is demonstrated probable cause.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings,”
6 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.