United States v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.2d 823 · 1985
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States v. Liefer (1985), United States v. Frankhauser (1996)
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 892 · 18 U.S.C. § 894
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Roschen v. Ward · United States v. Williams
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The factors that the court must consider must be present at the time the original application was made — i.e., a showing that the original application met the requirements of probable cause, enumerated serious crime and ineffectiveness of other investigatory techniques as to that offense and further that the application was made in good faith. § 2518. . The mere passage of time between the time of interception and the time of testimonial use does not allow the Government to avoid or evade these factors (probable cause, enumerated crime, ineffectiveness of other investigatory techniques and good faith). Because we fail to understand how the passage of time between the time of interception and the time of testimonial use allows the Government to alter these factors, we hold that requiring the Government to submit a judicial application immediately upon intercepting new crimes evidence is unnecessary to satisfy the purpose of § 2517(5), i.e., to safeguard a defendant from subterfuge searches and we reject the defendants’ novel and ridiculous attempt to read into the statute a statute of limitations on testimonial use.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue ..., (3) the evidence is clear and convincing, and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“endeavor[ ] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice,”
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.