225 Pa. Super. 381 - Commonwealth v. Ambers’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably 235 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Samuels (1975), 281 Pa. Super. 541 - Commonwealth v. Luddy (1980)
62 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
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Rosenblatt v. Baer · Commonwealth v. DeMichel · Commonwealth v. Johnston · Commonwealth v. TIRPAK
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Did the informant give prior reliable information? (2) Was the informant's story corroborated by any other source? (3) Were the informant's statements a declaration against interest? (4) Does the defendant's reputation support the informant's tip?”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“The test for determining the validity of a search warrant is that pronounced in the leading case of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 [, 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 ] (1964) [sic] an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant provided the magistrate is informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concludes that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, is credible or his information reliable. Thus briefly in recapitulating, Aguilar sets forth two requirements which must be met in the affidavit before a search warrant can be properly issued: (1) the setting forth of underlying circumstances from which the informer concludes the items in issue are where he said they were and, (2) the setting forth [of] underlying circumstances from which the officer affiant concludes that the informer is credible or his information reliable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.