Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Larry Duane Conner, United States of America v. John Charles Tilton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Larry Duane Conner, United States of America v. John Charles Tilton Anchor | green | “the government was actively pursuing a substantial, alternative line of investigation at the time of the constitutional violation,” | 5 |
| 2 | United States v. Terry Gene Carter | green | “it is axiomatic that, although we might have decided differently in the first instance, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the district court absent a finding of clear error, and we do not so find” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. Jerrell Heath | green | “the government cannot prevail under the inevitable discovery doctrine merely by establishing that it is more probable than not that the disputed evidence would have been obtained without the constitutional violation.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Jerrell Heath | green | “semantic problems in using the preponderance of the evidence standard to prove inevitability,” | 4 |
| 5 | United States v. Belki Maria Vasquez De Reyes | green | “substantial, alternative line of investigation” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.