United States v. Salmon 90-3355 E 90-3363 90-3366 90-3438’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 13 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Perez (2002), State v. Hendrickson (1996)
44 federal appellate · 13 district · 13 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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Brady v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · United States v. Ross
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e review under a clearly erroneous standard the district court's factual determinations, such as whether a defendant receives a reduced or increased offense level based on his role in the offense....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“permits 'warrantless searches of any part of a vehicle that may conceal evidence * * * where there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““[I]t may be that a person whose vehicle is seized pursuant to federal forfeiture law loses any legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle immediately upon its seizure .... However, we cannot say that a person whose car is seized pursuant to Pennsylvania’s forfeiture statute loses all legitimate expectation of privacy immediately upon the vehicle’s seizure. Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme has no counterpart to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (h). . . . Moreover, the statutory scheme suggests that transfer of title does not occur until after a court hearing is held. . . . Thus, a person whose vehicle is seized pursuant to Pennsylvania’s forfeiture scheme retains some legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle’s contents.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.