United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
67 F.3d 1359 · 1995
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably United States v. Darden (1995), United States v. Delpit (1996)
63 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Leon · Brown v. Illinois · Texas v. Brown
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any evidence of street gang membership of [sic] affiliation with any street gang, including, but not limited to, any drawing or miscellaneous writings regarding or evidencing gang membership; or objects or graffiti depicting gang members [sic] names, initials, logos, monikers, slogans, or containing mention of street gang membership, affiliation, activity, or identity; any paintings, drawings, photographs, or photograph albums depicting persons, vehicles, weapons or locations which may appear upon observation to be relevant on the questions of gang membership or association, or which may depict items sought and/or believed to be evidence of any criminal activity; and newspaper clippings tending to relate details or reference to any crime; and any address books, lists of, or single references to, addresses or telephone numbers of persons who may later be determined to belong to or be associated with any street gang.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the warrant specified that the search was motivated by an alleged kidnapping by the Disciples. The place to be searched was [the accused’s], where [the victim’s] kidnappers had allegedly taken him. The warrant also specified that [a specific person] would be found on the premises with particular items of gang paraphernalia. Because we find that the officers’ reliance on the warrant was not objectively unreasonable, Jackson’s argument for suppression must fail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any evidence of street gang membership o[r] affiliation with any street gang, including, but not limited to, any ... objects or graffiti depicting gang members[’] names, initials, logos, monikers, slogans, or containing mention of street gang membership, affiliation, activity, or identity; ... and newspaper clippings tending to relate details or reference to any crime....”
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.