Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 376 F.3d 270 - United States v. Holmes

United States v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

376 F.3d 270 · 2004

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Robinson (2005), United States v. Stevenson (2005)

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

360200420102020decided

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

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · Michigan v. Long · Illinois v. Wardlow

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[G]iven the number of police on the scene and the tactics the officers used, that [the defendants] cooperated with the police is entirely unsurprising. However, a reasonable officer in this situation — knowledgeable of the suspects' criminal history and that the gang to which the suspects belonged was known to be armed—would be aware of the risk that absent a protective search . . . , the suspects might, as the stop proceeded, seek to take advantage of a gap in the officers' vigilance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Quite simply, reasonable suspicion of a suspect’s dangerousness need not be based solely on activities observed by the police during or just before the relevant police encounter, but can be based on the suspect’s commission of violent crimes in the past-especially when those crimes indicate a high likelihood that the suspect will be ‘armed and dangerous’ when encountered in the future.”
    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.