Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 980 - United States v. Stubblefield

United States v. Stubblefield’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 980 · 1980

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
4
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably United States v. Hoyos (1989), Llaguno v. Mingey (1985)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

2901980199020002010decided

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 Simmons v. United States · Payton v. New York · Manson v. Brathwaite · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · United States v. Santana

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

  1. ““Little possibility of misidentification arises from the use of photographs depicting ‘the likeness not of some possible suspect in the police files, but of the [person] who actually committed the robbery.’ ... [A]ny resemblance between the person[ ] in the photographs and the defendant] not only was not impermissibly suggestive, but, in fact was highly probative.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The police were informed that an armed robbery had taken place and that the suspect had entered 2111 Cocoa Lane less than five minutes before they reached it. They acted reasonably when they entered the house and began to search for a man of the description they had been given, and for weapons which he had used in the robbery or might use against them. The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. Speed here was essential, and only a thorough search of the house for persons and weapons could have insured that Hayden was the only man present and that police had control of all weapons which could be used against them or to effect an escape.”
    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.