Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 977 F.2d 299 - Hessel v. O'Hearn

Hessel v. O'Hearn’s Empirical Analysis

977 F.2d 299 · 1992

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
2
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Billman v. Indiana Department of Corrections (1995), Calhoun v. Detella (2003)

68 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

4601992200020102020decided

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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Payton v. New York · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Parratt v. Taylor · Florida v. Royer

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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is often, perhaps typically, used ... to denote types of harm, often but not always trivial, for which the courts do not think a legal remedy should be provided.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The point, [however,] is not that the harm[ ] ... [is] small but that there is no actionable [constitutional] wrong.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Even if we were to find that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant, the defendants would not succeed on [their motion to dismiss]. They argue specifically that certain items such as jewelry, a telephone book and a vehicle title exceeded the scope of the warrant. They claim these “errors” would be enough to suppress the primary evidence against them, namely the cocaine and marijuana plants.... If the defendants in this case wish for suppression of all of the evidence, they must assert that all of the evidence was beyond the scope of the warrant. The seizure of uncontested evidence remains valid and is severable from any invalid search.”
    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.