Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.2d 120 - United States v. Harrell

United States v. Harrell’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.2d 120 · 1990

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
5
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Pofahl (1993), Murray v. Earle (2005)

20 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

1701990200020102020decided

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. § 911

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Holland v. United States · Berkemer v. McCarty · Oregon v. Elstad · Rideout 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “advance notice obtains and visible signs of authority mitigate rather than enhance the perceived degree of restraint.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““First, the trailer was only a short distance from the bus. Second, the conduct of the agents remained subject to the public scrutiny to the extent that the bus driver was actually present in the trailer drinking coffee. The agents did not completely isolate the women in an interrogation room. Third, the number of agents did not increase. Only five people were present in the trailer — the bus driver, the two women and the two agents. Changing the locus of the questioning to the trailer had the advantage of eliminating the potentially embarrassing presence of other bus passengers. With Agent Santana preoccupied with completing a baggage receipt form for the bus driver, it was unlikely that the agents might team up to overbear Bengivenga’s will. Finally, a reasonable person in Bengivenga’s position would have understood that so long as the bus driver remained in the trailer the bus would not depart and if everything checked out she would shortly rejoin the other passengers on the bus.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ection 746(a)(18) has been replaced by 18 U.S.C. S 911 . . . . The revision notes to S 911 states that the only significant change made to S 746(a)(18) was substituting `willfully' for `knowingly' and that the remaining changes were `minor' and `unnecessary words were omitted.'”
    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.