United States v. Ventling’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.2d 63 · 1982
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably United States v. Reyes (2002), United States v. Smith (1986)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Texas v. Certain Named & Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · United States v. Steffen · United States v. McColgin
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence must be in fact newly discovered, that is, discovered since the trial; 2) facts must be alleged from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; 3) the evidence relied upon must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; 4) it must be material to the issues involved; and 5) it must be of such nature that on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The absence of a closed or blocked gate in this country creates an invitation to the public that a person can lawfully enter along the driveway during daylight hours to contact the occupants for a lawful request and if the request is refused to leave by the same way. The presence of “no trespassing” signs in this country without a locked or closed gate make the entry along the driveway for the purposes above described not a trespass and therefore does not constitute an intrusion prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The standard for determining when the search of an area surrounding a residence violates fourth amendment guarantees no longer depends on outmoded property concepts, but whether the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that area.”
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.