United States v. Burnside’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.3d 511 · 2009
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Chimel v. California · Ornelas v. United States · Whren 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if, after considering all the evidence, we cannot avoid or ignore a 'definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.' " United States v. Jackson , 598 F.3d 340 , 344 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Burnside , 588 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir. 2009) ). "We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“special deference to the district court's credibility determinations because the resolution of a motion to suppress is almost always a fact-specific inquiry, and it is the district court which heard the testimony and observed the witnesses at the suppression hearing.”
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.