United States v. Pool’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.3d 1213 · 2010
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14133 (§ 210305 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14135 · 42 U.S.C. § 14135A · 42 U.S.C. § 14135E
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Schmerber v. State of California · Gerstein v. Pugh · United States v. Salerno · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“our job is limited to resolving the constitutionality of the program before us, as it is designed and as it has been implemented. In our system of government, courts base decisions not on dramatic Hollywood fantasies, but on concretely particularized facts developed in the cauldron of the adversary process and reduced to an assessable record. If ... and when, some future program permits the parade of horribles the DNA Act’s opponents fear ... we have every confidence that courts will respond appropriately.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. State
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.