United States v. Buckley’s Empirical Analysis
4 F.3d 552 · 1993
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Kennedy (1994), United States v. Lloyd (1995)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 3109
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Edwards v. Arizona · Colorado v. Connelly · United States v. Harris
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even if we entertain some doubt as to an informant's motives, [her] explicit and detailed description of the alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed first hand, entitles [her] tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We look both to 'the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation' in determining whether a reasonable person would feel coerced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Even if we were to find that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant, the defendants would not succeed on [their motion to dismiss]. They argue specifically that certain items such as jewelry, a telephone book and a vehicle title exceeded the scope of the warrant. They claim these “errors” would be enough to suppress the primary evidence against them, namely the cocaine and marijuana plants.... If the defendants in this case wish for suppression of all of the evidence, they must assert that all of the evidence was beyond the scope of the warrant. The seizure of uncontested evidence remains valid and is severable from any invalid search.”
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.