United States v. Mejias’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 435 · 1977
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Padilla-Martinez v. United States (1977), United States v. Hathaway (1986)
104 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Jones v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Marion · 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the doctrine of dual sovereignty, which recognizes that 'the federal government is not bound by the actions of state authorities and that successive state and federal prosecutions are constitutionally permissible.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t was lawful for the state officers to force entry into Mejias’ apartment to arrest him. . . Section 120.80(5) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law allows an officer, otherwise authorized to arrest, to break into premises when refused entry, after first having given notice of his authority and purpose. Since it is uncontroverted that Palazotto [the arresting officer] had probable cause to believe that Mejias was committing a crime, and that Mejias was present in the apartment, the warrantless arrest in this case was authorized. N.Y.C.P.L. §§ 140.10(1), 140.15.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was, therefore, entirely proper for the federal government to defer to the state exercise of prosecutorial power over appellants without foregoing its right to proceed against them if at any time it became advisable to do so. When the success of the state prosecution was seriously jeopardized by the state court suppression ruling (a ruling we hold to have been erroneous), it became the clear duty of the federal authorities to proceed against the individuals involved, including these appellants.”
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.