United States v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.3d 175 · 2008
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Tri-M Group, LLC v. Sharp (2011), United States v. Berrios (2012)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 861 (Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Leon · Varity Corporation v. Howe · United States v. Yousef · Chavarria v. Gonzalez
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'we would have to imagine a policeman tempted to make an unconstitutional search or seizure pausing to think and then being dissuaded by the consideration that the prospective defendant, if he is so unlucky as to have a lawyer who commits plain error in failing to file a timely pretrial suppression motion, will have another bite at the apple.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This case raises a procedural issue that has nagged our Court for decades and for which we have unwittingly given conflicting answers: whether a criminal defendant who failed to raise a reason to suppress evidence before the District Court may raise the reason on appeal. We conclude that he cannot absent good cause: such a suppression issue is waived under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, which trumps Rule 52(b)’s plain error standard in the context of motions to suppress. For this reason and others, we affirm the conviction of Larken Rose for five counts of failure to file personal income tax returns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Joyner v. State“In our Court, suppression issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived absent good cause under Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. Although a few of our opinions have inadvertently applied plain error review under Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), for the reasons stated below, we do not find these cases to be controlling. Further, the Criminal Rules’ text, their history, and pertinent policy considerations direct a waiver approach. Thus, a suppression issue not raised in the District Court is waived absent good cause, and we accordingly affirm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Joyner v. State
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.