Sherrick v. Eyman’s Empirical Analysis
389 F.2d 648 · 1968
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably United States v. Mapp (1973), 296 F. Supp. 1004 - United States v. Averell (1969)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems apparent to me that there could never be proper review as to whether there existed a ‘substantial basis’ for the magistrate’s ‘judicial determination’ unless somewhere, in some manner, the ‘basis,’ whether ‘substantial’ or insubstantial, appears upon the record.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the fact, as testified to by both the policeman and the magistrate, that the magistrate examined the policeman under oath “to determine if there’s probable cause for the warrant to issue, and then issued the warrant, satisfied the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that ‘ * * * no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation * * *.’ ” ‡ ‡ j}c 3}C Sjí “The testimony of the police officers and the magistrates indicates that information was given to the magistrate under oath in addition to the affidavit. This procedure differs from that under Rule 41(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure where the affidavit is the sole basis upon which the determination of probable cause is made. If we had before us only the affidavit we would undoubtedly be bound to conclude under the case of Aguilar v. State of Texas, supra, that it was insufficient. It would have been advisable for the magistrate to have a transcript made of the officer’s testimony, which he gave in addition to the affidavit, and he should have recited on the record what facts presented to him constituted “probable cause.” This deficiency we do not deem fatal under the circumstances herein as there is evidence in the record showing what was presented to the magistrate prior to the warrant in question being issued.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cadigan“IN THE JUSTICE COURT Flagstaff Precinct, County of Coconino, State of Arizona State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. 1956 Ford 2 Dr. Sta. Wagon-Lie. HCA 924 (Ariz) registered to Chris Boyer, Defendant. AFFIDAVIT Walt Hinson, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has reason to believe, and does believe that a 1956 Ford 2 Dr. Sta. Wagon-Lie. HOA 924 (Ariz) registered to Chris Boyer has in possession upon those certain premises in said vehicle, with in Coconino County, Arizona certain property, with intent to use it as a means of committing a public offense, said property consisting of Marijuana, narcotics, any drugs and paraphernalia incidental thereto. /s/ Walt Hinson Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of January, A. D. 1969. /s/ James F. Brierley Justice of the Peace of said Precinct.”
1 later decision 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.