United States v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 162 · 1973
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Elmore (1979), Walker v. City of Orem (2006)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for the purpose of questioning the appellant about a third person”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although not all street encounters between citizens and law enforcement agents involve Fourth Amendment considerations, when an officer accosts an individual and by physical force or show of authority restrains his liberty short of arrest, the stop becomes a “seizure” of the person. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 19, n. 16 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Such a seizure must then be tested for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. This requires the courts to weigh the need for police action against the inconvenience and intrusion which the stop entails. [Citations Omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Frazier“because agents made the stop pursuant to a months' old general criminal investigation, there was no emergency situation or other need for immediate action, agents never sought in advance to arrange an interview with appellant despite their ability to do so, agents had no suspicion that appellant had violated or was going to violate federal law, and”
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.