Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 387 F.3d 607 - Owens v. United States

Owens v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

387 F.3d 607 · 2004

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
March 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Cieslowski (2005), United States v. Corner (2010)

22 federal appellate ·

220200420102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Leon · Simmons v. United States · Stone v. Powell

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

  1. “[t]he warrant ... was based on a bare-bones affidavit, signed by a detective, which stated that three months earlier an informant had bought “a quantity of crack” from Owens at a house believed to be Owens’s residence. There was no indication of the actual quantity of crack or of the reliability of the informant....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If the quantity was slight — which, for all the judge issuing the warrant could have known, it was — there would be no basis for thinking either that the premises were a crack house or that the money received in the sale would still be on the premises. It would be just as likely that either Owens or someone with access to his house had made a single, isolated sale, perhaps to a desperate acquaintance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The prejudice essential to - 12 - a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is not being convicted though one is innocent, although that is the worst kind,”
    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.