United States v. Mora’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 860 · 1987
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Zannino (1990), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Leon · Bullock v. United States · United States v. Giordano · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Lombard v. Marcera
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a satisfactory explanation for the absence”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding held under the authority of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consciously or deliberately failing to perform his duty ... [the Court does] not condone or pardon such conduct, but [the Court] cannot condemn it as severely as if a purposeful attempt to evade the law or unfairly to pillory a suspect had transpired. Putting the worst face on things, the delays in this instance came about by honest mistake, negligently rather than intentionally.”
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.