United States v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.3d 893 · 2016
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Oliver v. United States · Hester v. United States · Kyllo v. United States · United States v. Dunn · California v. Ciraolo
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....” (emphasis added)). . See United States v. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 2016) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Stassi“In recent years, the Supreme Court has revived a 'property-based approach' to identify unconstitutional searches.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Neither Jones nor the common law provides sharp boundaries for the meaning of trespass for our purposes.”
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.