King v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
282 F.2d 398 · 1960
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1993 · most notably North Carolina v. Wrenn (1974), United States v. Chavez (1974)
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Jones v. United States · Draper v. United States · Gouled v. United States · Steele v. United States No. 1 · Grau 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The constitutional requirement of an oath or affirmation would be effectively eroded away if fictitious oaths were permitted. The statutory mandate that the affiant's name shall be stated is not satisfied by a false name, given by an unknown individual. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“10 In that case, conviction of defendant King rested on evidence taken from his home under a search warrant and the sole point of appeal was that the underlying affidavit was invalid and hence the search warrant was likewise invalid. This contention the court upheld. The affidavit was executed by Ruth or Rutha Douglas before a United States commissioner, upon which the commissioner authorized a search of King's home. The court said, at 399: 11”
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.