United States v. Bohn’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.3d 1129 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1 (National Park Police Drug Enforcement Supplemental Authority Act) · 40 U.S.C. § 3112
Relies on United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Humboldt County et al. · Kleppe v. New Mexico · Williams v. Woodford · Minnesota v. Block
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Having borrowed much of our reasoning with respect to the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment from cases involving the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, we have little difficulty holding that at least the same materiality requirement obtains with respect to a due process claim.”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of vehicles within a park area are governed by State law. State law that is now or may later be in effect is adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part. (b) Violating a provision of State law is prohibited.”
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.