Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 F.2d 89 - United States v. Luckett

United States v. Luckett’s Empirical Analysis

484 F.2d 89 · 1973

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
10
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Pierce v. Multnomah County (1996), Wilson v. State (1994)

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states

150197319801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Welp · United States v. Hunter

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

  1. “[b]ecause they had no reasonable grounds to be suspicious that there might be a warrant outstanding against him, this continued detention was unreasonable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Once the police officers required ap-pellee to come to the police car, he was “seized,” and therefore, the Fourth Amendment required that the length and scope of the detention be “ ‘strictly tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible.” . . . [United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90 (9th Cir. 1973).]”
    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.