United States v. Barajas-Avalos’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.3d 1040 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Harmelin v. Michigan · Rummel v. Estelle · Oliver v. United States · Minnesota v. Olson
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We review de novo the question whether probable cause exists after allegedly tainted information has been redacted from an affidavit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Williamson
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.