Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 F.3d 1 - United States v. Santana

United States v. Santana’s Empirical Analysis

6 F.3d 1 · 1993

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
6
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 41 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), United States v. Voigt (1996)

79 federal appellate · 41 district · 8 state decisions

6701993200020102020decided

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. § 3731

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Rakas v. Illinois · Rochin v. People of California · Moran v. Burbine · United States v. Russell

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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[c]arefully considered statements of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, must be accorded great weight and should be treated as authoritative when, as in this instance, badges of reliability abound”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “redressable through the utilization of less drastic disciplinary tools”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]aken together, [ United States v. ]Payner , [ 447 U.S. 727 , 735, 100 S.Ct. 2439 , 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980),] Hasting , and Bank of Nova Scotia form a trilogy admonishing federal courts to refrain from using the supervisory power to conform executive conduct to judicially preferred norms by dismissing charges, absent cognizable prejudice to a particular defendant.”
    4 later decisions 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.