Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 F.3d 620 - United States v. Thomas

United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

11 F.3d 620 · 1993

Citation profile

205
cited by 205 later decisions
4
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

121 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Koeberlein (1998), United States v. Caver (2006)

121 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

9701993200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Olano · Brinegar v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio · United States v. Young

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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, we are to consider whether an error occurred in the district court. Absent any error, our inquiry is at an end. However, if an error occurred, we then consider if the error was plain. If it is, then we proceed to inquire whether the plain error affects substantial rights. Finally, even if all three factors exist, we must then consider whether to exercise our discretionary power under Rule 52(b), or in other words, we must decide whether the plain error affecting substantial rights seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In reviewing a district court's determinations on suppression questions, a district court's factual findings are accepted unless they are clearly erroneous; however, the district court's application of the law to the facts, such as a finding of probable cause, is reviewed de novo.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
    5 later decisions 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.