Rugendorf v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
504 federal appellate · 87 district · 763 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,600 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Illinois v. Gates (1983), Franks v. Delaware (1978)
504 federal appellate · 87 district · 763 state decisions — followed in 44 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
reviewedUnited States v. Rugendorf (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Jones v. United States · Roviaro v. United States · Giordenello v. United States · Wilson v. United States
Cited together with Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Roviaro 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 1,600 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“were of only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and, not being within the personal knowledge of the affiant, did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way. In these situations the trial court may require disclosure and, if the government withholds the information, dismiss the action.” 353 U.S. at 60-61 , 77 S.Ct. 623, 628 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.