United States v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
512 F.2d 321 · 1975
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Finch (1977), State v. Olds (1978)
22 federal appellate · 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Vance v. North Carolina · Robert Lee Gawne v. United States of America, William Thomas Banks 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when:”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The involuntariness of seizure and detention ... is the very essence of the crime of kidnapping.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no constitutional right not to be viewed. United States v. Quarles, 4 Cir., 387 F. 2d 551 (1967). It is only when the arrest itself produces such pressure as to compel admissions or the production of contraband or the seizing of evidence that would not otherwise have been detected that the poisonous tree can be said to produce fruit. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). We hold that an unlawful arrest does not per se make inadmissible positive identification testimony that is otherwise competent. See Vance v. State of North Carolina, 4 Cir., 432 F. 2d 984, 990 (1970). Whether such testimony is admissible does not depend upon the validity of the arrest but upon whether the confrontation was ‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [appellants were] denied due process of law,’ Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1199 (1967).””
2 later decisions 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.