Mallory v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1,847 federal appellate · 251 district · 786 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,345 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Chimel v. California (1969)
1,847 federal appellate · 251 district · 786 state decisions — followed in 47 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
reviewedMallory v. United States (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Upshaw v. United States · Pennsylvania Railroad v. Rychlik · Mallory v. United States
Cited together with McNabb v. United States · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Upshaw v. United States · United States v. Mitchell · Escobedo v. Illinois
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 3,345 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he next step in the proceeding is to arraign the arrested person before a judicial officer as quickly as possible so that he may be advised of his rights and so that the issue of probable cause may be promptly determined. The arrested person may, of course, be ‘booked’ by the police. But he is not to be taken to police headquarters in order to carry out a process of inquiry that lends itself, even if not so designed, to eliciting damaging statements to support the arrest and ultimately his guilt.””
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not the function of the police to arrest, as it were, at large and to use an interrogating process at police headquarters in order to determine whom they should charge before a committing magistrate on 'probable cause.”
7 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.