Lopez Lopez v. Aran’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 898 · 1988
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Brennan v. Hendrigan (1989), United States v. Rodriguez-Morales (1991)
20 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 19 U.S.C. § 1582 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Warth v. Seldin
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although a generous amount of deference is given to prison officials on matters of prison safety, security, and discipline, it is clear that visitors do not relinquish their Fourth Amendment rights at the prison gates. Prison visitors retain the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The meaning, of “reasonableness” for Fourth Amendment purposes is highly situational.... The standard of “reasonableness” that governs searches [and seizures] in a given context depends, in general, upon a balancing of the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[0]ur holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion.”) 52 . Of course, in my view, Chief Judge Torru-ella had it right in viewing the entire checkpoint program to be invalid under the Fourth Amendment, not just the ticket-taking aspect. "[T]he INS has taken the easiest way out, which regardless of effectiveness, causes a serious intrusion upon the millions of United States citizens transiting the San Juan airport on their way to the mainland.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.