United States v. Corral’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 719 · 1992
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Perdue (1993), Cortez v. McCauley (2007)
71 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Ross · Texas v. Brown
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 141 n. 11, 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). However, where the contents of a seized container are a foregone conclusion, this prohibition against warrantless searches of containers under the plain view doctrine does not apply. We have held that when a container is”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In cases involving closed containers ... the plain view doctrine may support the warrantless seizure of a container believed to contain contraband but any subsequent search of the concealed contents of the container must be accompanied by a warrant or justified by one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the plain view seizure of an opaque balloon that contained an illicit substance even though the contents were not visible. The Court stated that “the use of the word ‘immediately apparent’ was very likely an unhappy choice of words, since it can be taken to imply that an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminating character of the evidence is necessary for an application of the ‘plain view’ doctrine.” Id. at 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 . All that is required, explained the Court, is a “practical, non-technical probability that incriminating evidence is involved.” Id. at 742 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 . Because the police officer, based on his participation in previous narcotics arrests and discussions with other officers, possessed probable cause to believe that the balloon contained an illicit substance, the Browm Court held that the “immediately apparent” requirement was satisfied. Id. As Brown makes clear, then, “con traband need not be visible in order for a plain view seizure to be justified.” Id. 460 U.S. at 747 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 (Stevens, J., concurring).”
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.