Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 F.2d 563 - Schook v. United States

Schook v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

337 F.2d 563 · 1964

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
5
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Vincent v. United States (1964), State v. Allen (1973)

41 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

3601964197019801990200020102020decided

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 Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Draper v. United States · Ker v. State of California · Henry 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`Reasonable grounds for suspicion when accompanied by facts or circumstances strong enough to justify a reasonably cautious man to believe the guilt of the suspect, suffice to constitute probable cause necessary for arrest without warrant,' and . . . a police officer who is only attempting to routinely question persons under suspicious circumstances to ascertain their identity and actions is executing permissible police procedure to safeguard the community against criminal activity and is not making an arrest."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress plainly sought to protect the public by proscribing the transportation of firearms by convicted felons or those charged with felonies without attaching any significance to the procedural vehicle forming the basis of the charge. It would therefore emasculate Congress' purpose for us to distinguish between persons lawfully charged with a felony by `information' and those charged by `indictment.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]here is no essential difference in the function or consequence of an 'indictment' and an 'information'”
    2 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.