United States v. Akin’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 459 · 1977
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Espinosa (1985), Hopkinson v. State (1981)
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Relies on Alderman v. United States · Hoffa v. United States · Stoner v. California · United States v. Dinitz · Frazier v. Cupp
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Many things might happen during the course of the trial which would prevent the presentation of all the evidence described in advance. Certainly not every variance between the advance description and the actual presentation constitutes reversible error, when a proper limiting instruction has been given.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A hotel room can clearly be the object of the Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office. Fourth Amendment protection, however, is dependent on the right to private occupancy of the room since at the conclusion of the rental period, the guest has completely lost his right to use the room and any privacy associated with it. At the conclusion of the occupancy period, the hotel manager may enter the room or consent to its search. The question of intentional abandonment is, therefore, a necessary inquiry only during the rental period when defendant has sufficient control over the premises to establish a right to privacy therein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where a statement by the Government in opening argument is not substantiated at trial because of a subsequent ruling by the trial judge, both the good faith on the part of the prosecution and the impact of the statements in the context of the particular trial must be assessed. * * *” United States v. Akin, 7th Cir. 1977, 562 F.2d 459, 466 , cert. denied 435 U.S. 933 , 98 S.Ct. 1509 , 55 L.Ed.2d 531 . (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hopkinson 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.