State v. Aurilio’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2002
3 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Donovan · United States v. Abramson · Rodriguez v. State · 287 So. 2d 43 - In Re Grand Jury Investigation · 342 So. 2d 567 - State v. McGillicuddy
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e cannot help but feel that a judge’s decision to issue a wiretap authorization would be seriously affected by the disclosure of the details or previous wiretap applications. In other words, a judge may well deny an application knowing previous wiretaps have failed or that past applications have been denied or knowing other similar pertinent information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The principal prosecuting attorney of any State, ... may apply to such judge for, and such judge may grant ... an order authorizing, or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kid napping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic drugs, marihuana or other dangerous drugs, or other crime dangerous to life, limb or property,' and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, designated in any applicable State statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rivers
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.