United States v. Lim’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.3d 673 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1160 (§ 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Oregon v. Elstad · Blackledge v. Allison · Florida v. Jimeno · New York v. Quarles · Missouri v. Seibert
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Seibert requires the suppression of a postwarning statement only where a deliberate two-step strategy is used and no curative measures are taken; where that strategy is not used, the admissibility of postwarning statements continues to be governed by the principles of Elstad .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We refused to apply the exception where the police had already swept the house twice, the occupants were secure, the 'immediacy of the situation had passed,' and '[t]he public did not have access to [the defendant's] private residence.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A statement is involuntary if the tactics employed by law enforcement officials constitute a Fifth Amendment due process violation and are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned.”
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.