United States v. Elder’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.3d 1090 · 2006
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited
5 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Nix v. Williams · Maryland v. Buie · Brigham City v. Stuart · Murray v. United States · United States v. Edwards
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The usual understanding of that doctrine is that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when all the steps required to obtain a valid warrant have been taken before the premature search occurs [citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)]. . . . If probable cause alone without putting in train the process of applying for a warrant were enough to invoke the inevitable-discovery doctrine, that would have the same effect as limiting the exclusionary rule to searches conducted without probable cause.”
2 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.