Accarino v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 456 · 1949
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Payton v. New York (1980), Ker v. State of California (1963)
98 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 17 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
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Johnson v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Agnello v. United States
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * That additional right imposes additional requirements upon the power of arrest. In District of Columbia v. Little, [ 85 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 178 F.2d 13 (1949), affirmed on other grounds, 339 U.S. 1 , 70 S.Ct. 468 , 94 L.Ed. 599 (1950)], we said: ‘We emphasize that no matter who the officer is or what his mission, a government official cannot invade a private home, unless (1) a magistrate has authorized him to do so or (2) an immediate major crisis in the performance of duty affords neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate.’ ””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]either the Constable, nor any other can break open any house for the apprehension of the party suspected or charged with the felony. . . . " 4 E. Coke, Institutes . Coke also was of the opinion that only a King's indictment could justify the breaking of doors to effect an arrest founded on suspicion, and that not even a warrant issued by a justice of the peace was sufficient authority. Ibid. He was apparently alone in that view, however. 38 1 R. Burn, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer 87 (6th ed. 1758) ("where one lies under probable suspicion only, and is not indicted, it seems the better opinion at this day (Mr. Hawkins says) that no one can justify the breaking open doors in order to apprehend him . . . "); M. Foster, Crown Law 321 (1762); 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 139 (6th ed. 1787): "But where one lies under a probable suspicion only, and is not indicted, it seems the better ( d ) opinion at this day, That no one can justify the breaking open doors in order to apprehend him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payton v. New York“4 E. Coke, Institutes . Coke also was of the opinion that only a King's indictment could justify the breaking of doors to effect an arrest founded on suspicion, and that not even a warrant issued by a justice of the peace was sufficient authority. Ibid. He was apparently alone in that view, however. 38 1 R. Burn, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer 87 (6th ed. 1758) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payton v. New York
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.