United States v. Pipes’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 840 · 1996
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2013
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Rochin v. People of California · United States v. Russell · National League of Cities v. Usery · Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) Property taken or detained under this section shall not be subject to re-plevin, but is deemed to be in the custody of the director or the director’s authorized representative, agent or employee ..., or a sheriff, deputy sheriff, municipal law enforcement officer, or constable, subject only to the orders and decrees of the circuit or criminal court. When property is seized under parts 3 and 4 of this chapter or title 39, chapter 17 part 4, the seizing authority may: (4) Regardless of any other method of disposition of property contained in this chapter, use the property taken or detained, with permission of the court and under such terms and conditions as are approved by the court, for use in the drug enforcement program of the county in which the goods are seized, and/or, with approval of the court having jurisdiction over the property, sell the property and utilize the proceeds for the drug enforcement program of the county in which the property was seized .... Gardner argues that Tennessee law requires that court permission be obtained to use property seized in one county in a sting operation in another county and that, since court permission was not obtained in his case, his due process rights were violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendant obviously did not know that the officers were violating [the statute]. Thus, the officers' failure to comply with [it] had no impact on defendant's decision to commit the offense.”
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.