Arnold v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.2d 4 · 1967
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 1988 · most notably United States v. White (1981), Lowe v. United States (1969)
42 federal appellate · 7 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Wilson v. Porter · United States v. Garguilo · Cotton 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he seriousness of the offense, the degree of likelihood that the person detained may have witnessed or been involved in the offense, the proximity in time and space from the scene of the crime, the urgency of the occasion, the nature of the detention and its extent, the means and procedures employed by the officer, the presence of any circumstances suggesting harassment or a deliberate effort to avoid the necessity of securing a warrant these and other factors will be relevant in balancing the need for limited on-the-scene detention and inquiry against the inconvenience and indignity to the individual detained. [ Arnold v. United States, 382 F. 2d 4, 7 (9 Cir.1967)]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellant was a member of the crowd, unknown and free to depart at will. The officer had no choice but to accost him. Asking appellant to remove his hands from his pockets and to step away from the crowd were measures dictated by minimal prudence for the offense commonly involves the use of weapons. The action also minimized the embarrassment and indignity to which appellant might be exposed. No force was used. The questions asked were limited to inviting an exculpatory explanation of appellant’s presence at the scene of the crime. In light of these circumstances, we think the detention was reasonable and therefore appellant’s answers to Officer Crawford’s questions were properly admitted in evidence.” 382 F.2d at 7 .”
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.