Case Citator › Marron v. United States

Marron v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
275 U.S. 192
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
48 of 48
Citing cases (total)
48
Treatment dates
1969
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Marron v. United States has one confirmed criticism of its warrant rule: all 48 flagged citations have been read, and the treatment is listed below. Morales v. State criticized Marron's restriction on seizing items omitted from a search warrant, reasoning that Warden v. Hayden had displaced it.
More on how this was screened

Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States distinguished Marron on the facts and cited it in support of the result; Chimel v. California later recounted that distinction as a narrow characterization of Marron, rather than new adverse treatment by Go-Bart.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

48 later cases cite Marron v. United States; 48 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Marron v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court criticized Marron's restriction on seizing evidence omitted from a search warrant, reasoning that Warden permitted the seizure.

    Morales v. State · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · filed

    This court is thus urged to disregard Marron v. United States (1927), 275 U. S. 192, 48 Sup. Ct. 74, 72 L. Ed. 231, as has been done by many other state and federal courts. ... We think Matron is impliedly overruled by Warden. We see no logical basis for a distinction between seizure of items not named in the warrant, but discovered in the course of the search, and items which are seized in a search incident to an arrest.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Marron v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace