Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 F.3d 21 - United States v. Castillo

United States v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis

287 F.3d 21 · 2002

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
February 2021
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 18 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Hicks (2009), United States v. Perez (2003)

11 federal appellate · 18 district ·

190200220102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Illinois v. Gates · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Hadfield

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and [that] the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause . . . .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “With an omission, the inquiry is whether its inclusion in an affidavit would have led to a negative finding by the magistrate on probable cause.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “exists only when we are 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
    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.