Nardone v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
308 U.S. 338 · 1939
Citation profile
1,470 federal appellate · 219 district · 1,441 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,001 later decisions (155 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Wong Sun v. United States (1963), United States v. Wade (1967)
1,470 federal appellate · 219 district · 1,441 state decisions — followed in 49 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
reviewedUnited States v. Nardone (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Gouled v. United States · Nardone v. United States · United States v. Nardone
Cited together with Wong Sun v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Jones v. United States · Alderman 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 4,001 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.”
116 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. Of course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and unaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained by the Government’s own wrong cannot be used by it in the way proposed.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any claim for the exclusion of evidence logically relevant in criminal prosecutions is heavily handicapped. It must be justified by an over-riding public policy expressed in the Constitution or the law of the land.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 340, 60 S.Ct. 266 , 267, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).”
8 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.