United States v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
386 F.3d 304 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2024
5 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Ball v. United States · United States v. Wilson · Carroll v. United States · United States v. Sanges · United States v. Helstoski
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence ..., not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information, if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding. ... The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted. The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[although the orders appealed from will certainly hamper (and may effectively prevent) the obtaining and subsequent use of [the witness’s] testimony, those orders did not, either in substance or in form, limit the pool of potential evidence that would be admissible at the forthcoming trial.... That the orders had an incidental effect on the government’s evidence-gathering is too remote a consequence to support appellate jurisdiction under the second paragraph of section 3731 [allowing the government to appeal an order suppressing or excluding evidence].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Zeus, determined to avenge himself on Prometheus, presented this femme fatale to Epimetheus (Prometheus' brother), first arming her with a jar containing all the evils of the world. After Epimetheus foolishly accepted the gift, Pandora proceeded to open the jar, thereby loosing a panoply of torments upon humanity.”
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.