In Re US

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing constitutional difficulties in dual or hybrid theory because it would “necessarily authorize far more detailed location information, such as triangulation and GPS data, which unquestionably implicate Fourth Amendment privacy rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2014-10-16· cited 53×
• United States v. Jones
  D.C. Circuit· 2012-12-14· cited 12×
• In re United States
  E.D. Virginia· 2011-11-10· cited 7×
• United States v. Jones
  District of Columbia· 2012-12-14
• State v. Ryan T. Harrison
  Tex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2014-05-30

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 20,645×
• Katz v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
• Smith v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1979-06-20· cited 2,305×
• Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  Supreme Court· 2000-03-28· cited 1,963×
• United States v. Wilson
  Supreme Court· 1992-03-24· cited 1,422×
• TRW Inc. v. Andrews
  Supreme Court· 2001-11-13· cited 1,407×
• Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council
  Supreme Court· 1988-04-20· cited 1,067×
• Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.
  Supreme Court· 2002-02-19· cited 1,044×
• United States v. Karo
  Supreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 895×
• United States v. New York Telephone Co.
  Supreme Court· 1977-12-07· cited 871×
• Clark v. Martinez
  Supreme Court· 2005-01-12· cited 824×
• Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1938-12-05· cited 414×
• Kenneth A. McCready v. Ebay, Inc., Bruce Kamminga, and David McDuffee
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-07-10· cited 329×
• In Re Application for Pen Register & Trap/Trace Device With Cell Site Location Authority
  S.D. Texas· 2005-10-14· cited 77×
• In Re the United States for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register & a Trap & Trace Device
  E.D. New York· 2005-10-24· cited 54×
• In Re United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Installation & Use of a Pen Register
  W.D. New York· 2006-02-15· cited 30×
• In Matter of Application of US for an Order
  W.D. Louisiana· 2006-01-26· cited 30×
• In Re US for an Order Aut. Dis. of Prosp. Cell
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2006-01-17· cited 29×
• In Re the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Release of Prospective Cell Site Information
  District of Columbia· 2006-01-06· cited 26×
• In Re the United States for Orders Authorizing the Installation
  D. Maryland· 2006-02-27· cited 25×

Other cases named In Re US

15 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• In Re U.S.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-09-11· cited 2×
• In Re US
  Federal Circuit· 2012-01-20· cited 1×
• In Re US
  Tenth Circuit· 2009-08-13
• In Re U.S.
  Eleventh Circuit· 1987-10-28
• In Re U.S
  Fifth Circuit· 1989-03-02
• In Re U.S
  Fifth Circuit· 1989-07-12
• In Re U.S
  Second Circuit· 1989-06-19
• In Re U.S
  Eighth Circuit· 1993-03-12
• In Re U.S
  Second Circuit· 1993-11-18
• In Re US
  Seventh Circuit· 2007-10-01
• In Re US
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-07-10
• In Re US
  D. Massachusetts· 1999-02-09
• In Re US
  S.D. Texas· 2007-10-17
• In Re US
  Federal Circuit· 2026-02-02
• In Re US
  Federal Circuit· 2026-02-02