Barkley v. United States, 529 U.S. 1028 (2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Barkley v. United States, 529 U.S. 1028 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“exclusionary rule is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights”
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Lora (mass, 2008-05-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Commonwealth v. Lora
Mass. · 2008 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
exclusionary rule is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Miranda
Mass. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smith, 196 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 1999), cert, denied, 529 U.S. 1028 (2000) (Federal gratuity statute provides enforcement mechanism and may not be transformed into exclusionary rule); United States v. Lara, supra at 198 , and cases cited (appropriate penalty for violation of Federal gratuity statute is fine or imprisonment as prescribed by statute, not application of exclusionary rule). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Furda v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Midgett, 198 F.3d 143, 147 (1999) (because Congress did not define the term “committed,” the court reads it in light of the common usage____In its broadest sense, to “commit” means “to place officially in confinement or custody.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1028 , 120 S.Ct. 1440 , 146 L.Ed.2d 328 (2000).
cited Cited "see" FURDA v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Midgett, 198 F.3d 143, 146 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1028 , 120 S.Ct. 1440 , 146 L.Ed.2d 328 (2000).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Slusher
6th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ward, 190 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1118 , 120 S.Ct. 940 , 145 L.Ed.2d 817 and 529 U.S. 1028 , 120 S.Ct. 1440 , 146 L.Ed.2d 328 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Leonard v. State (2×)
Nev. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smith, 196 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the remedy of exclusion is not warranted assuming arguendo government violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2)), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1028 , 120 S.Ct. 1440 , 146 L.Ed.2d 328 (2000); United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 424-25 (6th Cir.1998) (similar), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1045 , 119 S.Ct. 1348 , 143 L.Ed.2d 511 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barkley
v.
United States
No. 99-8085.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 20, 2000.
529 U.S. 1028
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 70%
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.