Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 704 F.3d 105 - Swartz v. Insogna

Swartz v. Insogna’s Empirical Analysis

704 F.3d 105 · 2013

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Terry v. Ohio · Pearson v. Callahan · Whren v. United States · Weyant v. Okst

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

  1. “The instruction to reenter the car might be considered a component of a motor vehicle stop because in a typical automobile stop occupants would be told to remain in their car.”); see, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 33 A.3d 361, 373-74 (D.C.2011) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “put in motion proceedings that rendered the defendant at all times subject to the orders of the court ... and foreseeably required him to incur the expense of a lawyer and the inconvenience and perhaps expense of multiple court appearances,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a post-arraignment defendant who is obligated to appear in court in connection with criminal charges whenever his attendance is required suffers a Fourth Amendment deprivation of liberty,”
    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.