United States v. Werdene’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3103 · 42 U.S.C. § 17611
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois
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.
“[T]o the extent a mistake was made in this case, it was not made by the agents.... Rather, it was made by the magistrate when she mistakenly issued a warrant outside her jurisdiction. The agents consulted with federal' attorneys before preparing the warrant application.- They presented 'the magistrate judge with all relevant information to allow her to make a decision as to whether Rule 41(b) permitted her to issue the warrant. The FBI agents did not misrepresent how the search would be conducted or, most importantly, where it would be conducted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[e]ven a flexible application of the Rule ... is insufficient to allow the Court to read into it powers possessed by the magistrate that are clearly not contemplated and do not fit into any of the five subsections.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There are two categories of Rule 41 violations: those involving constitutional violations, and all others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.