Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 U.S. 305 - Chandler v. Miller

Chandler v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

899
cited by 899 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
36
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

272 federal appellate · 54 district · 270 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 899 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011)

272 federal appellate · 54 district · 270 state decisions — followed in 36 states

38701997200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedChandler v. Miller (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1653

Relies on United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · United States v. Jacobsen · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Olmstead v. United States · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.

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

  1. “[i]n limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties.”
    15 later decisions 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.