United States v. Lomas’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.2d 886 · 1983
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably Segura v. United States (1984), United States v. Studley (1986)
61 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois · Beck v. State of Ohio
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An individual officer in a coordinated investigation need not have personal knowledge of all the relevant facts to effect an arrest. It is sufficient if the pool of objective data possessed by the group of agents acting in concert supplies the requisite probable cause.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Avila · In Re MEB“[i]n the two cases in which federal appellate courts have squarely upheld an outrageous government conduct argument, the defendants would not have had the capacity to commit the crimes without the government's assistance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.