Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 829 F.2d 1314 - United States v. Locklear

United States v. Locklear’s Empirical Analysis

829 F.2d 1314 · 1987

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Schmuck v. United States (1989), United States v. Pelton (1987)

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

4301987199020002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Pereira v. United States · Lego v. Twomey

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

  1. “[w]here one does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow ..., or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended, then he causes the mails to be used.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, this Court declines to overturn a factual determination founded on witness demeanor and credibility.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “induced by such duress or coercion that the suspect's 'will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.' " United States v. Locklear , 829 F.2d 1314 , 1317 (1987) (quoting Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 225 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 ); see Colorado v. Connelly , 479 U.S. 157 , 167, 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986) (holding that "coercive police activity is a necessary predicate”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.