Eighth Circuit· 3/17/1976
United States v. James E. Clark
Citations
- 531 F.2d 928
- 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12346
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the officers’ search exceeded the scope of the warrant and constituted an impermissible exploratory search where officers inventoried and recorded the serial numbers of a significant quantity of property that was not authorized by the warrant
- affirming the suppression of evidence obtained in second valid warrant, as it was “tainted” by impermissible initial search
- affirming the suppression of evidence obtained in second valid warrant, as it was “tainted” by impermissible initial search
- officers authorized to search for drugs could not seize pistol, check serial number and prosecute defendant for firearms violation
- officers authorized to search for drugs could not seize pistol, check serial number and prosecute defendant for firearms violation
- serial numbers of firearms seized during search for narcotics
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lay, Heaney, Stephenson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. HeldtD.C. Circuit· 1981-10-02· cited 272×
- United States v. George OchsSecond Circuit· 1979-03-13· cited 198×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 1978-07-12· cited 124×
- Bies v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1977-03-15· cited 118×
- United States v. Raymond Edwards, United States of America v. David RichardsFirst Circuit· 1979-07-25· cited 98×
- United States v. Frederick Dale AndersonEighth Circuit· 1977-04-04· cited 89×
- State v. MooreWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1980-11-25· cited 86×
- United States v. James D. Ellison, (Two Cases)Eighth Circuit· 1986-06-17· cited 80×
- Reeves v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 1979-09-14· cited 79×
- State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1977-01-24· cited 77×
- State v. BakkerSupreme Court of Iowa· 1978-01-18· cited 65×
- United States v. Donald Edward RowleyEighth Circuit· 1992-09-23· cited 59×
- State v. LeeUtah Supreme Court· 1981-06-30· cited 59×
- United States v. Nicodemo Scarfo, A/K/A Nicholas Scarfo, A/K/A Nicholas Scarto. Appeal of Nicodemo ScarfoThird Circuit· 1982-07-22· cited 56×
- United States v. Robert Lee HouseEighth Circuit· 1979-09-24· cited 55×
- United States v. Jerry D. WrightEighth Circuit· 1981-02-27· cited 48×
- United States v. Willard R. SandersEighth Circuit· 1980-09-22· cited 46×
- State v. NollWisconsin Supreme Court· 1984-01-31· cited 40×
- United States v. ClayEighth Circuit· 2009-09-04· cited 33×
- United States v. Leland L. SchireSeventh Circuit· 1978-10-18· cited 28×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1971-06-21· cited 9,038×
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1886-02-01· cited 3,820×
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-03-05· cited 1,768×
- Marron v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1927-11-21· cited 1,400×
- Stanford v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-03-01· cited 948×
- United States v. Derl GraySixth Circuit· 1973-08-07· cited 86×
- United States v. Charles H. SokolowFifth Circuit· 1971-10-28· cited 56×
- United States v. George Martin GolayEighth Circuit· 1974-08-27· cited 48×
- United States v. Jerry Lee WilsonEighth Circuit· 1975-11-13· cited 39×
- United States v. Jerry WilliamsEighth Circuit· 1975-10-07· cited 24×
- United States v. Robert Lee CarwellEighth Circuit· 1974-02-25· cited 20×
Other cases named United States v. James E. Clark
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.