United States v. Sumlin’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 684 · 1977
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2007 · most notably Georgia v. Randolph (2006), 30 Cal. 3d 841 - People v. Haskett (1982)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · McMann v. Richardson · United States v. Matlock · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not increase a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he rationale behind [the rule in Matlock ] is that a joint occupant assumes the risk of his co-occupant exposing their common private areas to such a search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had authority to consent to a search despite defendant's explicit refusal to consent. The court stated: 7 Matlock did not depend on the defendant's absence for the defendant there had just been arrested in the front yard of the residence when the third person's consent to search was procured. . . . 8 Appellant attempts to distinguish Matlock, however, by virtue of the additional fact here that he initially refused to consent to the search. We fail to perceive any constitutional significance in this additional fact. The holding of Matlock focused on whether or not the”
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.