Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 F.3d 708 - United States v. Little

United States v. Little’s Empirical Analysis

60 F.3d 708 · 1995

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
4
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. McRae (1996), United States v. Hernandez (1996)

39 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions

3501995200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Florida v. Bostick · Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · In re Disbarment of Sacco · Komen v. Robbins

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

  1. “`accusatory, persistent, and intrusive' questioning may turn an otherwise voluntary encounter into a coercive one if it conveys the message that compliance is required”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The rationale for deference to the original finder of fact is not limited to the superiority of’ the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility. The trial judge’s major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise. Duplication of the trial judge’s efforts in the court of appeals would very likely contribute only negligibly to the accuracy of fact determination at a huge cost in diversion of judicial resources.”
    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.