Amos v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
255 U.S. 313 · 1921
Citation profile
427 federal appellate · 146 district · 512 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,390 later decisions (113 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
427 federal appellate · 146 district · 512 state decisions — followed in 46 states
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 Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Gouled v. United States
Cited together with Weeks v. United States · Gouled v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. 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 1,390 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he contention that the constitutional rights of defendants were waived when his wife admitted to his home the Government officers, who came, without search warrant, demanding admission to make search of it under Government authority, cannot be entertained.... for it is perfectly clear that under the implied coercion here presented, no such waiver was intended or effected.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When it is clear and undisputed that property [illegal liquor] used in evidence against a defendant on a criminal trial was procured by the Government through an unconstitutional search and seizure in his home, his petition . . . is not too late when made immediately after the jury was sworn, and his motion to exclude the property, and testimony concerning it, from evidence should not be denied as inviting a collateral issue.””
2 later decisions 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.