United States v. Ledezma-Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 310 · 1984
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably United States v. Endicott (1986), United States v. Markowski (1985)
29 federal appellate · 5 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 960
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Harrison v. United States · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a defendant takes the stand to overcome the impact of the testimony that has been illegally obtained, the trial testimony itself becomes tainted by the illegally obtained statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“inflame the jury to act as the conscience of the community,”
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.