Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 626 F.2d 429 - United States v. Hill

United States v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

626 F.2d 429 · 1980

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Florida v. Royer (1983), United States v. Berry (1982)

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

480198019902000decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Brinegar v. United States · United States v. Mendenhall · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

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

  1. “In our view, when Markonni requested Hill to come with him to the Delta office, the interrogation could no longer be characterized as “brief” or “on-the-spot.” Rather, the request signaled the beginning of a more extended interrogation which was to occur in a place other than where it began. Second, as in Dunaway [v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979)] Hill was never informed that he was “free to go,” and the circumstances surrounding the request indicate that Hill would have been physically restrained if he had refused to accompany Markonni or had tried to escape his custody. Third, as in Dunaway, the circumstances indicate that the detention involved here was for the purpose of interrogation. In sum, the scope of the intrusion involved in Markonni’s request for Hill to accompany him to the Delta office was significantly greater than that involved in a brief Terry stop, and therefore amounted to an arrest.”
    2 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.