Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.3d 413 - United States v. D.F.

United States v. D.F.’s Empirical Analysis

115 F.3d 413 · 1997

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
8
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 191 Ill. 2d 37 - In Re GO (2000), United States v. Brooks (1997)

35 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

3001997200020102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Brinegar v. United States · Ornelas v. United States · Arizona v. Fulminante · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.

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

  1. “'[W]hether a confession is voluntary is a matter of law that must be reviewed de novo in this court,' but 'the determination of the historical facts of the case are the proper domain of the trial court and ... our review of its findings in that regard will be for clear error.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “emphasized that `the determination of the historical facts of the case are the proper domain of the trial court and that our review of its findings in that regard will be for clear error.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Staff at the Center went to great lengths to encourage and develop her trust. They also employed a wide range of tactics to “encourage” her to talk about the crimes she had committed. Privileges were accorded based on, among other things, frank admission of crimes. Criminal admissions were forgiven subject to continued cooperation and disclosure. Individual staff questioned D.F. directly about her past crimes. Protective Services Staff were provided with information about her crimes, and were allowed to question her about further crimes.”
    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.