State v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 542 F. Supp. 345 - United States v. Dorfman (1982), Commonwealth v. Nine Hundred & Ninety-Two Dollars (1981)
27 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
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · United States v. Ventresca · Roviaro v. United States · McCray v. State of Illinois
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime. It is founded upon public policy and seeks to advance the public interest in effective law enforcement. [Citation omitted.] This court has consistently held that a confidential informant's identity will be divulged only under exceptional circumstances. [Citations omitted.] The general rule is that the burden is upon the defendant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and much discretion is vested in the trial judge on the question of whether the circumstances warrant disclosure. [Citations omitted.]"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime. It is founded upon public policy and seeks to advance the public interest in effective law enforcement. Roviaro v. United States, [ 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] supra. This court has consistently held that a confidential informant’s identity will be divulged only under exceptional circumstances. State v. Robinson, 342 So.2d 183 (La.1977); State v. Russell, 334 So.2d 398 (La.1976); State v. Thorson, 302 So.2d 578 (La.1974). The general rule is that the burden is upon the defendant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and much discretion is vested in the trial judge on the question of whether the circumstances warrant disclosure. State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Russell, supra; State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471 , 256 So.2d 594 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 242 , 34 L.Ed.2d 173 (1972); State v. Greenbaum, 257 La. 917 , 244 So.2d 832 (1971).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... affidavits must be given a commonsense and realistic interpretation; and a doubtful or marginal case will be resolved in favor of upholding the validity of the warrant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.