Husty v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 694 · 1931
Citation profile
502 federal appellate · 64 district · 272 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,015 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Terry v. Ohio (1968), Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970)
502 federal appellate · 64 district · 272 state decisions — followed in 35 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Durland v. United States · Dumbra v. United States · Duignan v. United States
Cited together with Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Di Re
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 1,015 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prompt attempt of (defendant's) companions to escape when hailed by the officers”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may be searched for and seized. The Rule deals with warrants to search, and is unrelated to arrests. Nor is there anything in the Fourth Amendment indicating that absent probable cause to arrest a third party, resort must be had to a subpoena. 7 18 The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit expressed the correct view of Rule 41 and of the Fourth Amendment when, contrary to the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the District Court in the present litigation, it ruled that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As the act added no new criminal offense to those enumerated and defined in the National Prohibition Act, it added nothing to the material allegations required to be set out in indictments for those offenses. The proviso is only a guide to the discretion of the court in imposing the increased sentences for those offenses for which an increased penalty is authorized by the act” — citing Ross v. United States and McElvogue v. United States, supra.”
1 later decision 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.