Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 F.2d 837 - United States v. Hamilton

United States v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

792 F.2d 837 · 1986

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
10
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega (1989), Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America (1990)

61 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states

66019861990200020102020decided

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. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney

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

  1. “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Among the factors that might be relevant in determining whether a warrant would be required in such a circumstance is its location, whether the vehicle is readily mobile or instead, for instance, elevated on blocks, whether the vehicle is licensed, whether it is connected to utilities, and whether it has convenient access to a public road.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While a trial court may be in the best position to determine the actual extent of mutual use, the question of whether these facts constitute a 'sufficient relationship' for the purposes of the fourth amendment is an inherently legal one.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.