Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 948 F.2d 418 - United States v. Kiser

United States v. Kiser’s Empirical Analysis

948 F.2d 418 · 1991

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Padilla (1993), United States v. Swinney (1992)

56 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

590199120002010decided

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. § 3237 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Leon · Rakas v. Illinois · Nix v. Williams · Alderman v. United States · Kastigar 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Considering all circumstances, we agree with the district court that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that they possessed a reasonable suspicion as would support the valid detention of Fletcher's bag as well as an objectively reasonable belief that the warrant issued was valid. * * * The purpose of the exclusionary rule, deterrence of police misconduct, will not be served by its application to this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Supreme Court has enunciated a two part test to determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the object seized. A court must determine: (1) whether the petitioner has asserted a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) whether the petitioner’s subjective expectation is objectively reasonable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.