Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 F.2d 950 - Springer v. United States

Springer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

340 F.2d 950 · 1965

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

140196519701980199020002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson · United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit · Glouser v. United States · Butler v. United States · Williams 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] § 2255 proceeding does not serve the office of an appeal. Butler v. United States, 340 F.2d 63 (8 Cir. 1965) [cert. denied, 382 U.S. 847, 86 S.Ct. 92, 15 L.Ed.2d 87 (1965)] and cases there cited; Glouser v. United States, 296 F.2d 853 , 856 (8 Cir. 1961) [cert. denied, 369 U.S. 825, 82 S.Ct. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 789 (1962)]. And it is settled that the question whether evidence was seized illegally ordinarily may not be successfully raised in a proceeding which constitutes a collateral attack on the sentence, but must be presented in the appeal from the conviction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Likewise, the illegal search and seizure issue cannot be considered on a § 2255 motion where, as here, the circumstances of the search and seizure were fully known to the defendant at the time of his trial resulting in his conviction.””
    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.