Combs v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 3 district · 175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 292 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Rakas v. Illinois (1979), United States v. Salvucci (1980)
88 federal appellate · 3 district · 175 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Combs (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · Mancusi v. DeForte · United States v. Combs
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 292 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“virtually barren of the facts necessary to determine”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JRM · State v. Porras-Fuerte““4 The Court in Mancusi relied upon Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960), as having done away with ‘the requirement that to establish standing one must show legal possession or ownership of the searched premises.’ 392 U. S., at 369 . In Jones , the Court held that the petitioner then before it had standing and enunciated two rules as alternative grounds for its decision. First, the Jones Court ruled that the ‘possession on the basis of which [an accused] is to be . .. convicted suffices to give him standing under any fair and rational conception of the requirements of Rule 41 (e),’ Fed. Rule Crim. Proc.; second, the Court ruled that ‘anyone legitimately on premises where a search occurs’ has standing to challenge the legality of that search. 362 U. S., at 264, 267 . The Government has urged that we take the opportunity, said to be presented by the instant case, to re-examine the first alternative holding of Jones . Even assuming we were disposed to do so, the Court of Appeals did not, in the opinion it filed in this case, deal with the question whether the nature of the charge against petitioner brought his case v/ithin the coverage of the first aspect of the Jones holding, and we decline to reach or consider issues not yet passed on by that court.” Id. at 227.”
3 later decisions 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.