United States v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 991 · 1992
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States of America v. Marion Promise (2001), United States v. Console (1993)
97 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 3109 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Kotteakos v. United States · Chimel v. California
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We first note that the address on the receipt reflects not only the assertion of the Circuit City employee who made out the receipt but also the assertion of the customer who provided the address. The address was thus hearsay within hearsay, see Fed.R.Evid. 805, and was not admissible to prove Patrick’s residence unless both the customer’s statement and the employee’s recording of it were admissible. See United States v. Baker, 693 F.2d 183, 188 (D.C.Cir.1982) (‘Double hearsay exists when a business record is prepared by one employee from information supplied by another’; ‘[an] outsider’s statement must fall within another hearsay exception to be admissible because it does not have the presumption of accuracy that statements made during the regular course of business have.’); see also Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 939 F.2d 260, 271 (5th Cir.1991) (‘Rule 803(6) does not, by itself, permit the admission of [a] business record’ when the ‘source of ... information is an outsider.’). Neither was admissible here. The government did not call a Circuit City employee who could show that ‘it was the regular practice’ of Circuit City to make the receipt. Fed.R.Evid. 803(6). But even if an employee had been called and had testified that it was his regular practice to record the information, his testimony would have answered only part of the question we face; we still must determine the truth of the information provided because rule 803(6) also requires that the information be ‘transmi”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he quantity of drug possessed is not a constituent element of the offense of possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a). Quantity is relevant only to punishment....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[o]nce the police were lawfully on the premises, they were authorized to conduct a protective sweep”
5 later decisions 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.