Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 641 F.2d 1161 - United States v. Herbst

United States v. Herbst’s Empirical Analysis

641 F.2d 1161 · 1981

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2000 · most notably Florida v. Royer (1983), Griffin v. United States (1981)

45 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

600198119902000decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Mendenhall · Rawlings v. Kentucky · United States v. Salvucci

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

  1. “The issue of when a “seizure” of an individual has occurred and the quantum of proof necessary to justify such a seizure is an unsettled one .... [Tjhis Circuit has held that a seizure requires only reasonable suspicion [citations omitted]; on the other hand, we have also held that a seizure is an arrest requiring probable cause. [Citations omitted]. Part of the conflict is a result of differing definitions of the word “seizure.” Whether a seizure should be treated (a) as an arrest requiring probable cause, (b) as a police-citizen contact requiring no justification, or (c) as an intermediate concept between these two extremes requiring reasonable suspicion, is an issue that has not been squarely addressed by this Circuit. [Citations omitted]. The dominant view in this Circuit appears to be that a seizure occurs when an individual is no longer free to leave and is justified when supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.”
    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.