Sutherland v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.2d 305 · 1937
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1982 · most notably Elkins v. United States (1960), United States v. Joseph A. Chase, United States of America v. Robert H. Parrish, United States of America v. Wyatt J. Roy, Jr. (1967)
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Byars v. United States · Nathanson v. United States · Gambino v. United States · Greer v. United States · Breedin 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are of opinion that the admission in evidence of the liquor wrongfully seized violated rights of the defendants guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The wrongful arrest, search, and seizure were made solely on behalf of the United States. The evidence so secured was the foundation for the prosecution and supplied the only evidence of guilt. It is true that the troopers were not shown to have acted under the directions of the federal officials in making the arrest and seizure. But the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments may be invaded as effectively by such co-operation as by the state officers acting under direction of the federal officials. The prosecution thereupon instituted by the federal authorities was, as conducted, in effect a ratification of the arrest, search, and seizure made by the troopers on behalf of the United States, (citations omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * nothing is better settled than that a witness, whether a party or not, may not be asked questions as to irrelevant matters on cross-examination for the purpose of contradicting his answers and thus discrediting him. (Cases cited.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That there is no understanding or agreement between the Hopewell authorities and the federal authorities whereby they may prosecute in the federal courts violations of law discovered by them, and for seventeen years prior to this seizure there had been no such prosecution. “That there is no understanding between the State authorities and the federal authorities whereby the latter are obligated to take over prosecutions discovered by the former, but it is generally understood by State officers that when they have discovered a violation of federal as well as State law, they are at liberty to consult with the federal officers with a view to determining whether or not the federal officers adopt the case and institute a federal prosecution against the particular offenders; that they frequently do pursue this course and that frequently such cases are adopted by the federal authorities.””
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.