United States v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 289 · 1997
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Eusebio Escobar-De Jesus (1999), 208 Ill. 2d 118 - People v. Johnson (2003)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
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
Relies on United States v. Olano · Anderson v. Creighton · United States v. Leon · Thomas v. Arn · Ornelas v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“violations of even ... central requirements do not mandate suppression if the government demonstrates to the court's satisfaction that the statutory purpose has been achieved despite the violation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a process that in all other important respects complied with the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[The government] argues that the alternative ground is really a Trojan horse effort to review an unappealable order. The argument is clever but unpersuasive. The fact that the [alternative argument] may have implications for two different orders does not prevent us from considering that issue so far as it pertains to a reviewable order. The cases cited by the government, e.g., United States v. Shameizadeh, 41 F.3d 266, 267 (6th Cir.1994), are not on point. Indeed, if we thought that the suppression order were clearly valid, but on a ground different than that offered by the district court, it would be bizarre to overturn it." Cunningham, 113 F.3d at 295-96 .”
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.