Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 752 F.2d 379 - United States v. Hicks

United States v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

752 F.2d 379 · 1985

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
5
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Castillo (1988), Fuller v. Mg Jewelry (1991)

50 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

3801985199020002010decided

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 United States v. McConney · United States v. Dubrofsky · United States v. Bernard · United States v. Robertson · United States v. Kunkler

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

  1. “'Conduct which appears innocent to a lay person may have entirely different significance to an experienced ... officer.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First. The trial judge’s findings that certain facts occurred, the weight accorded to the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are reviewed under the deferential, clearly erroneous standard.... Second. The selection by the trial court of the applicable law is reviewed de novo. Third. The application of the law to the facts as established by the district court is subject to de novo review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When police officers, acting on probable cause and in good faith, reasonably believe from the totality of circumstances that (a) evidence or contraband will imminently be destroyed or (b) the nature of the crime or character of the suspects) pose a risk of danger to the arresting officers or third persons, exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry, search or seizure of the premises.”
    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.