Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 452 F.2d 731 - United States v. Miller

United States v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

452 F.2d 731 · 1971

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Wright (1994), United States v. Pforzheimer (1987)

30 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

1601971198019902000decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · Elkins v. United States · Henry v. United States

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

  1. “[i]t is . . . well established in this circuit that 'in federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment . . . must be determined by Federal law even though the police actions are those of state police officers.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In determining whether there has been an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers [in a federal prosecution], a federal court must make an independent inquiry, whether or not there has been such an inquiry by a state court, and irrespective of how any such inquiry may have turned out. The test is one of federal law, neither enlarged by what one state may have countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have colorably suppressed.”
    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.