United States v. Miggins’s Empirical Analysis
302 F.3d 384 · 2002
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Manigan (2010), United States v. Frazier (2005)
40 federal appellate · 7 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Illinois v. Gates · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · United States v. Leon
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although [the defendant] suggests that his waiver was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made because he did not sign a waiver form listing his rights, he offers no authority, and none can be found, for the proposition that a written waiver is necessary to establish a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Probable cause is defined as “reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion,” that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” This determination does not lend itself to the application of “rigid legal rules.” Rather, the probable cause standard is a “ ‘practical non-technical conception [wherein] ... we deal with probabilities ... [which are] the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’ ” Stated otherwise, “probable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts — not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he affidavit did not “require that the person receiving the package actually be inside the residence when the package is delivered or that the person receiving the package take it inside the residence and remain indoors .... Read in a commonsense fashion, and avoiding a hyper-technical construction, we believe that the triggering event language of the affidavit was satisfied if the package was taken by someone who had been inside ■the residence just prior to its delivery.”
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.