United States v. Duff’s Empirical Analysis
831 F.2d 176 · 1987
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Davis (1991), United States v. Rearden (2003)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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. § 3603 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Schmerber v. State of California · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Griffin v. Wisconsin
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, the search must be reasonable and must be based upon the probation officer's reasonable belief that it is necessary to the performance of her duties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We find no due process violation in the fact that Duff was not given notice before the drug testing that he would be subject to such testing. '[Although] [i]t is an essential component of due process that individuals be given fair warning of those acts which may lead to a loss of liberty,' [United States v.] Dane , 570 F.2d [840] at 843 [(9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 959 , 98 S.Ct. 3075 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1124 (1978)]. Duff had ample notice from the general terms of the court's probation conditions and the specific terms of the probation officer's instructions that he was prohibited from using illegal drugs. . . . Due process does not require that prior notice be given of the techniques through which noncompliance will be detected. "”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Toney v. State““In 1984, Congress replaced the Federal Probation Act with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which was Chapter II of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. See Pub.L. No. 98-473, §§ 211-212, 98 Stat.1987 (1983). The new Act [did] not take effect until November 1, 1987. See Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 235 , 98 Stat.1987, 2031 (1984), amended by Pub.L. No. 99-217, § 4 , 99 Stat. 1728 (1987). After October 1987, the section entitled ‘Duties of Probation Officers,' 18 U.S.C. § 3655 (1982 & Supp. III 1985), [was] codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3603 . Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 212 , 98 Stat. 1987 , 2002 (1984); see also id. at 2001-04 .””
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.