Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 F.2d 1014 - Rouse v. United States

Rouse v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

359 F.2d 1014 · 1966

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 8 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Raddatz (1980), United States v. Montos (1970)

31 federal appellate · 8 district · 32 state decisions

350196619701980199020002010decided

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 Beck v. State of Ohio · McNabb v. United States · Gouled v. United States · Di Bella v. United States · Cogen 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * It is, of course, always possible to renew at trial a motion to suppress, but it was not the purpose of Rule 41(e) * * * customarily to countenance consecutive hearings and dispositions of the same issue, once before trial and once during, absent some new and unusual turn in the evidence at trial. The whole point of the pretrial hearing of motions to suppress is to expedite the trial, even to the point of eliminating- the need to hold one at all."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A pre-trial ruling on a motion to suppress does not bind the trial judge in all circumstances. New facts, new light on the credibility of government witnesses, or other matters appearing at trial may cast reasonable doubt on the pre-trial ruling. It then becomes the duty of the trial judge to consider de novo the issue of suppression and, if necessary, hold a hearing out of the presence of the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.