SGRO v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 206 · 1932
Citation profile
312 federal appellate · 77 district · 643 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,278 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably United States v. Watson (1975), Harris v. United States (1947)
312 federal appellate · 77 district · 643 state decisions — followed in 43 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
reviewedIn re Trevas (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Marron v. United States · United States v. Lefkowitz · Byars v. United States
Cited together with Aguilar v. Texas · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Ventresca · Spinelli v. United States · Jones 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 1,278 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be determined by the circumstances of each case.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"If the warrant is the old one, sought to be revived, the proceeding is a nullity, and if it is a new warrant, the commissioner must act accordingly.... The proof supplied must have appropriate relation to the application for the new warrant and must speak as of the time of the issue of that warrant. The commissioner has no authority to rely on affidavits which have sole relation to a different time and have not been brought down to date or supplemented so that they can be deemed to disclose grounds existing when the new warrant is issued."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.””
6 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.