United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 415 · 1995
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), United States v. Bates (1996)
51 federal appellate · 7 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 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Taylor v. United States · New York v. Belton · Ker v. State of California · Elkins 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense the suspect allegedly committed; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause that the suspect committed the crime; (4) strong reason to believe the suspect is in the premises being entered; (5) a likelihood the suspect will escape if not swiftly captured; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The standard of review observed by this court in evaluating the district court's ruling in a suppression motion is `clearly erroneous' as to that court's factual findings viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and de novo as to questions of law ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The "knock and announce” rule embodied in § 3109 has ancient common law antecedents. The most frequently cited perhaps is Seymayne's Case, 77 Eng.Repr. 194 (K.B. 1603) in which the requirement was announced, at page 195, that "in all cases where the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors....””
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.