Wilson v. Schnettler’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 31 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 226 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
66 federal appellate · 31 district · 38 state decisions
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
reviewedBernard Wilson v. Donald F. Schnettler, Arthur E. Doll and Robert E. Waltz (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 26 U.S.C. § 7607 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Brinegar v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Boyd 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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We live in the jurisdiction of two sovereigns. Each has its own system of courts to interpret and enforce its laws, although in common territory. These courts could not perform their respective functions without embarrassing conflicts unless rules were adopted to avoid them. Such rules have been adopted. * * * Federal courts should not exercise their discretionary power `to interfere with or embarrass threatened proceedings in state courts save in those exceptional cases which call for the interposition of a court of equity to prevent irreparable injury which is clear and imminent.'" Douglas v. City of Jeannette, supra, 319 U.S. [157] at page 163, 63 S.Ct. [877] at page 881, [ 87 L.Ed. 1324 ].”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hess v. Orton · Doe v. Randall““ ‘Where a state court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction, the tribunal which first gets it holds it to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction invoked is exhausted; and this rules applies alike in both civil and criminal cases.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When we forsake Rea v. United States and tell the federal courts to keep hands off, we wink at a new form of official lawlessness. Federal officials are now free to violate the Federal Rules that were designed to protect the individual’s privacy, provided they turn the evidence unlawfully obtained over to the States for prosecution. This is an evasion of federal law that has consequences so serious that I must dissent.”
1 later decision 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.