Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 U.S. 10 - Standefer v. United States

Standefer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

1,421
cited by 1,421 later decisions
42
cited 42 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

546 federal appellate · 75 district · 441 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,421 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Powell (1984), California v. Beheler (1983)

546 federal appellate · 75 district · 441 state decisions — followed in 38 states

543019801990200020102020decided

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. Standefer (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Ashe v. Swenson · Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States

Cited together with Ashe v. Swenson · Dunn v. United States · United States v. Powell · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Jackson v. Virginia

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 1,421 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the important federal interest in the enforcement of criminal law.”
    49 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “no significant harm flows from enforcing a rule that affords a litigant only one full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue, and there is no sound reason for burdening the courts with repetitive litigation.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The estoppel doctrine ... is premised upon an underlying confidence that the result achieved in the initial litigation was substantially correct. In the absence of appellate review, or of similar procedures, such confidence is often unwarranted.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.