United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.2d 287 · 1952
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 1972 · most notably Corngold v. United States (1966), United States v. Rosenberg (1952)
70 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Leviton Et Al. v. United States · General Reinsurance Corp. v. Commissioner · Rice v. Ames · In re Fried
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evidence obtained by search was found in the appellant’s luggage which was in the possession of Mrs. Ashe, who consented to the search. As we stated on the prior appeal, United States v. Walker, 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 481 , 483, the appellant had no right to object to the search of premises not occupied by him nor to the seizure of property not within his possession.” 197 F.2d at page 289.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is elementary that neither habeas corpus nor motion in the nature of application for writ of error cor-am nobis can be availed of in lieu of writ of error or appeal, to correct errors committed in the course of a trial, even though such errors relate to constitutional rights. It is only when there has been the denial of the substance of a fair trial that the validity of the proceedings may be thus collaterally attacked or questioned by motion in the nature of a petition for writ of error coram nobis or under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Assuming that the evidence could have been suppressed by proper motions before or during the trial, it is extremely doubtful that objection to the evidence can be raised at this late date by motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 . Such a motion cannot ordinarily be used in lieu of appeal to correct errors committed in the course of a trial, even though such errors relate to constitutional rights.”
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.