Chieppa v. Krimsky’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1990
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 4161
Relies on Zerbst v. Kidwell · Tippitt v. Wood · United States ex rel. Quinn v. Hunter · United States v. Angelo Chieppa, Abe Ivicola, Anthony Petti, and Joseph D. Polverino · Hammerer v. Huff
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The power to defer necessarily creates the power to give implementing instructions to defer. It is an emphasis of form over substance to argue that the warrant itself must call for its delayed execution, and that an accompanying letter is insufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McConnell v. Martin
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.