United States v. Moskowitz’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 1142 · 1989
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Helmsley (1991), United States v. Holzer (1988)
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 32 · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 46316 · 49 U.S.C. § 5123 · 49 U.S.C. § 5124
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Abel v. United States · California v. Ciraolo · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility [and that] the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review and should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is conceded that Moskowitz’s bags were searched without a warrant. Nevertheless, “[s]ince one forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy upon abandoning one’s property, a warrantless search or seizure of abandoned property does not violate the fourth amendment.” United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37, 44 (2d Cir.1987); see Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 240-41 , 80 S.Ct. 683, 697-98 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). If Moskowitz abandoned his two checked bags, he has no grounds to challenge the legality of a subsequent search of the bags. See United States v. Knox, 839 F.2d 285, 293-94 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, [490] U.S. [1019], 109 S.Ct. 1742 , 104 L.Ed.2d 179 (1989); United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir.1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he facts and circumstances pertinent to the court's abandonment inquiry are not limited to those which were known to the officers at the time of the search or seizure. Rather, subsequently discovered events may support an inference that appellants had already chosen, and manifested their decision, not to return to the property.”
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.