Dailey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 870 · 1958
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2002 · most notably Chimel v. California (1969), United States v. Montos (1970)
36 federal appellate · 8 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 26 U.S.C. § 7607
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · United States v. Mitchell · Fikes v. State of Alabama · Upshaw 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Make arrests without warrant for violations of any law of the United States relating to narcotic drugs (as defined in section 4731) or marihuana (as defined in section 4761) where the violation is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or where such person has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such violation.” 70 Stat. 570 , 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1954) § 7607.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is nothing in the statute requiring that an arrest be made immediately following the arresting officer’s knowledge of probable cause for arrest. If an arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated the narcotics laws, he may defer the arrest for a day, a week, two weeks, or perhaps longer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.