United States v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 664 · 1988
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2022
10 federal appellate · 4 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Payton v. New York · Beck v. State of Ohio · California v. Carney · United States v. Williams
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We hold that no showing of a privacy interest is necessary under the facts of this case. The main thrust of Hill's argument is that his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and that all evidence obtained as a result of the arrest is therefore tainted and must be suppressed. Hill clearly may challenge the validity of his own arrest. We hold that he may therefore claim that evidence found as a fruit of the arrest should be excluded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ott v. State“has historically turned on the ready mobility of the vehicle, and on the presence of the vehicle in a setting that objectively indicates that the vehicle is being used for transportation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crudo
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.