United States v. Winter’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 975 · 1975
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Evans (1978), United States v. Williams (1980)
78 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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 14 U.S.C. § 2 · 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 7 · 19 U.S.C. § 1401 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 176 · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Beck v. State of Ohio · Rochin v. People of California · Graham v. Richardson · Frisbie v. Collins
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e are convinced that ... a defendant in a federal criminal trial whether citizen or alien, whether arrested within or beyond the territory of the United States may not successfully challenge the District Court's jurisdiction over his person on the grounds that his presence before the Court was unlawfully secured.... [T]he Supreme Court has not receded from Ker or Frisbie, and neither has this Court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“... [D]ue process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will. 15 Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 511-12, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (footnote omitted). 16 We, too, adhere to this doctrine”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“. . . [to] make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas . . . for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board, . . . examine the ship’s documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel . . . When . . it appears that a breach of the laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been commited, by any person, such person shall be arrested ... 14 U.S.C. '89(a) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.