Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 498 F.2d 879 - United States v. Hoffman

United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

498 F.2d 879 · 1974

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2010

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

8019741980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242

Relies on Williams v. United States · Griffin v. State of Maryland · George T. Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, Willie O. Hampton and Mattie Hampton, Individually and on Behalf of All Otherssimilarly Situated v. The Bank of California, National Association, a California Bankingcorporation · United States v. Delerme · Bichel Optical Laboratories, Inc. v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis

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

  1. “authorized on a continuing and full-time basis to search actively for criminals and ... to use the powers of the state when their search [was] successful.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The acts charged occurred while [the defendants] were on duty . . . while possessing the same powers as city police.”
    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.