United States v. Berisha’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.2d 791 · 1991
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Cardenas (1993), United States v. Chaney (1992)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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) · 31 U.S.C. § 5316 · 31 U.S.C. § 5317
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Montoya De Hernandez · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Searches at border. For purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of section 5316, a customs officer may stop and search, at the border and without a search warrant, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance, any envelope, or other container, and any person entering or departing the United States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[g]iven the substantial national interest in regulating the exportation of domestic currency at the border and the similar features of incoming and outgoing border-crossing searches for fourth amendment purposes, we hold that in the context of a routine stop and search for currency, the rationale applied to border searches under the fourth amendment encompasses persons exiting as well as persons entering our borders.”
2 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.