Villano v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 680 · 1962
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), United States v. Hoffa (1965)
84 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 4411
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Jones v. United States · Elkins v. United States · United States v. Page
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.
“(1) There must be clear and positive testimony that consent was “unequivocal and specific” and “freely and intelligently” given; (2) the government must prove consent was given without duress or coercion, express or implied; and (3) the courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and there must be convincing evidence that such rights were waived.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The government must prove that consent was given. It must show that there was no duress or coercion, express or implied. The consent must be ‘unequivocal and specific’ and ‘freely and intelligently given.’ There must be convincing evidence that defendant has waived his rights_ ‘Courts indulge every rea sonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A person aggrieved within the meaning of Rule 41(e) is one who has himself been the victim of an unlawful invasion of his own privacy.””
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.