Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 738 F.2d 538 - United States v. Mankani

United States v. Mankani’s Empirical Analysis

738 F.2d 538 · 1984

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
12
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 9 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably United States v. Young (1984), United States v. Brandon (1994)

49 federal appellate · 9 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 12 states

37019841990200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Katz v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois

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

  1. “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects conversations that cannot be heard except by means of artificial enhancement.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “at least as consistent with innocence as with guilt,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Absent a warrant, this kind of investigative intrusion bypasses the safeguards of a neutral magistrate's predetermination of probable cause. Id. at 543 (internal citations omitted). Because of the similarities drawn earlier in this opinion between the use of the thermal imager in Kyllo and the dog sniff in Rabb's case, it would be difficult to posit that the rationale of Mankani does not apply to Rabb's case. The risk of flowers growing in one's house being smelled by the neighbors may be a”
    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.