Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
328 U.S. 582 · 1946
Citation profile
378 federal appellate · 55 district · 376 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,094 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Chimel v. California (1969)
378 federal appellate · 55 district · 376 state decisions — followed in 37 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. Davis (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 550 · 18 U.S.C. § 611 (§ 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 612
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Nardone v. United States
Cited together with Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Boyd v. United States · Harris v. United States · Katz v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz
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 1,094 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of restrictions validly established.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* # * and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The privilege against self-incrimination which exists as to private papers cannot be claimed with regard to documents required to be kept by law. Even the dissent in the Davis case, supra, stated that `there is an important difference in the constitutional protection afforded their possessors between papers exclusively private and documents having public aspects'.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.