Groh v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
569 federal appellate · 241 district · 316 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,914 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Pearson v. Callahan (2009), Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)
569 federal appellate · 241 district · 316 state decisions — followed in 38 states
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
reviewedRamirez v. Butte-Silver Bow County (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Cited together with United States v. Leon · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Anderson v. Creighton · Payton v. New York
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 1,914 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure-requires the executing officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the search.” However, in United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869 , 875 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004), we stated that, while”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough the application particularly described the place to be searched and the contraband petitioner expected to find, the warrant itself was less specific; it failed to identify any of the items that petitioner intended to seize.”
7 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.