United States v. German’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.3d 849 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 18 U.S.C. § 3122 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Smith v. Maryland · Miller v. United States · United States v. Mares · United States v. Caceres · United States v. Payner
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, we would encroach upon the prerogatives of Congress were we to authorize a remedy not provided for by the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress has determined that the benefits of an exclusionary rule do not outweigh its substantial social costs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“specifically provides for an exclusionary remedy when the statutory requirements are not met,”
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.