United States v. Lefkowitz’s Empirical Analysis
285 U.S. 452 · 1932
Citation profile
599 federal appellate · 73 district · 580 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,584 later decisions (146 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Illinois v. Gates (1983), Aguilar v. Texas (1964)
599 federal appellate · 73 district · 580 state decisions — followed in 45 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLefkowitz v. United States Attorney for Southern District of New York (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Agnello v. United States
Cited together with Harris v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Carroll 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 1,584 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants as to what searches and seizures are permissible under the Constitution are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers and others who may happen to make arrests. Security against unlawful searches is more likely to be attained by resort to search warrants than by reliance upon the caution and sagacity of petty officers while acting under the excitement that attends the capture of persons accused of crime. * * *”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Though intended to be used to solicit orders for liquor in violation of the act, the papers and other articles found and taken were in themselves unoffending. The decisions of this court distinguish searches of one’s house, office, papers or effects merely to get evidence to convict him of crime from searches such as those made to find stolen goods for return to the owner, to take property that has been forfeited to the government, to discover property concealed to avoid payment of duties for which it is liable, and from searches such as those made for the seizure of counterfeit coins, burglars’ tools, gambling paraphernalia, and illicit liquor in order to prevent the commission of crime.””
3 later decisions 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.