Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 U.S. 221 - Cogen v. United States

Cogen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

278 U.S. 221 · 1929

Citation profile

698
cited by 698 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

437 federal appellate · 39 district · 97 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 698 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Abney v. United States (1977), Cobbledick v. United States (1940)

437 federal appellate · 39 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 20 states

13301929193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedCogen v. United States (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Weeks v. United States · Agnello v. United States · Marron v. United States · Burdeau v. McDowell · Gouled 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 698 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “but a step in the criminal case preliminary to the trial thereof.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is not true that the order on such a motion deals with a matter distinct from the general subject of the litigation. ... In essence, the motion resembles others made before or during a trial to secure or to suppress evidence, such as applications to compel the production of books or documents ... or for a subpoena duces tecum . . . The orders made upon such applications, so far as they affect the rights only of parties to the litigation, are interlocutory. . . . 278 U.S. at 223-224 , 49 S.Ct. at 119 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Applications for return of papers or other property may, however, often be made by motion or other summary proceeding, by reason of the fact that the person in possession is an officer of the court. * * * Where an application is filed in that form, its essential character and the circumstances under which it is made will determine whether it is an independent proceeding or merely a step in the trial of the criminal case.”
    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.