Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 F.3d 1133 - United States v. Hall

United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

171 F.3d 1133 · 1999

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
October 2023
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Avery (2002), United States v. Evans (2001)

41 federal appellate · 5 district ·

4601999200020102020decided

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. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5812 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5821 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Kotteakos v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “evaluating only for clear error, however, any findings of fact by the trial court and giving appropriate deference to the inferences apparently drawn from those facts by law enforcement officers, the court that issued the search warrants, and the trial court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he affidavit, though not explicitly mentioning the confidential informant's criminal history, informed the magistrate judge that the informant had used and sold cocaine in the past, thus putting the magistrate judge on notice that the confidential informant was not a model citizen and that he had previously violated laws.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “issuing the search warrant[] would manifestly have been aware . . . that [Schofield] was not a model citizen”
    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.