United States v. Oaxaca’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.2d 518 · 1978
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992), Llaguno v. Mingey (1985)
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Glasser v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Cooper v. State of California · United States v. Edwards · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To require a warrant under these circumstances would be to require a useless and meaningless formality.” 569 F.2d at 524 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Reeder · Ex Parte Hilley““Indeed, it is difficult to perceive what is unreasonable about the police’s examining and holding as evidence those personal effects of the accused that they already have in their lawful custody as the result of a lawful arrest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a crime which reflects adversely on the defendant's honesty and integrity. As such, it is relevant to defendant's credibility, which, in light of his alibi defense, was a key issue in the case.”
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.