Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 536 F.3d 1012 - Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey

Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis

536 F.3d 1012 · 2008

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
February 2022
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco (2010), Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder (2009)

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

450200820102020decided

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 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Payton v. New York · Brown v. Illinois · United States v. Matlock · Duncan v. Walker

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

  1. “B. Fourth Amendment Violation “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (footnote omitted). The presumption of unconstitutionality that accompanies “the [warrantless] entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest” may be overcome only by showing “consent or exigent circumstances.” Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211 , 101 S.Ct. 1642 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “held that, even in administrative proceedings in which ... the exclusionary rule [does not ordinarily apply], administrative tribunals are still required to exclude evidence that was obtained by deliberate violations of the Fourth Amendment or by conduct a reasonable officer should know is in violation of the Constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we must first determine whether [MCSO] violated the Fourth Amendment. If [it] did, then we must determine whether [MCSO] committed the violations deliberately or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution.”
    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.