United States of America v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta,’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.3d 615 · 1999
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2019
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · Moran v. Burbine · Oregon v. Elstad · Oregon v. Mathiason
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person seeking entry into the United States does not have a right to remain silent; the immigrant must honestly describe his identity, nationality, business, and claim of entitlement to enter, and must do this without the aid of counsel. The United States is entitled to condition entry on willingness to provide essential information. No information, no entry.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Potential coercion or compulsion is vital to Miranda 's application, because the clause underlying its framework is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.”
2 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.