United States v. McCormick’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.2d 367 · 1962
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2001 · most notably United States v. Ventresca (1965), United States v. Lyon (1968)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 12 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 15 U.S.C. § 1172 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Jones v. United States · Berger v. United States · Harris v. United States · Sweet 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * We refuse to hold that such information, when communicated in the course of official business by the agents among themselves, is excluded by the hearsay rule, so as to require the quashing of a search warrant issued upon the affidavit of one of the agents setting forth his reliance upon such information. Our position is in harmony with the modern view as to the use of hearsay evidence to support the issuance of a search warrant, announced in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 271, 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960): “ ‘We conclude therefore that hearsay may be the basis for a warrant. We cannot say that there was so little basis for accepting the hearsay here that the Commissioner acted improperly. The Commissioner need not have been convinced of the presence of narcotics in the apartment. He might have found the affidavit insufficient and withheld his warrant. But there was substantial basis for him to conclude that narcotics were probably present in the apartment, and that is sufficient. * * *' ””
2 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.