Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 943 F.2d 110 - United States v. Sanchez

United States v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis

943 F.2d 110 · 1991

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
7
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 23 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Zapata (1994), United States v. Lewis (1994)

63 federal appellate · 23 district · 8 state decisions

580199120002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Salvucci · McCarthy v. Blair · United States v. Arango · United States v. Garcia-Rosa

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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “discrete analytic element apart from the merits”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ownership, possession and/or control; historical use of the property searched or the thing seized; ability to regulate access; the totality of the surrounding circumstances; the existence or nonexistence of a subjective anticipation of privacy; and the objective reasonableness of such an expectancy under the facts of a given case.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a more intimate relationship with the car's owner or a history of regular use of the [car]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.