United States v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 671 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Center Art Galleries-Hawaii, Inc. v. United States (1989), United States v. Shu Yan Eng (1992)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Relies on United States v. Leon · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Calandra · Nix v. Williams · Sedillo v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere fact that the government serves a subpoena ... does not mean that it will obtain the documents it requests. A subpoena can be invalid for a variety of reasons, as when it is unduly burdensome, Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c), when it violates the right against self-incrimination, United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 610-12 , 104 S.Ct. 1237 , 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984), or when it calls for privileged documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1036-37 (2d Cir.1984). Moreover, we can deplore but not ignore the possibility that the recipient of a subpoena may falsely claim to have lost or destroyed the documents called for, or may even deliberately conceal or destroy them after service of the subpoena.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was not intended to create new substantive grounds for suppressing evidence, but simply to provide a pre-indictment procedure for the return of property and the suppression of evidence in accordance with the substantive rights created by the Constitution or recognized in decisional law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The pivotal question is whether `a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miles v. Com.
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.