Dancy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.2d 370 · 1968
Citation profile
46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
September 1978
most recently cited
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Katz v. United States · Hoffa v. United States · Olmstead v. United States · Silverman v. United States · Lopez 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * "* * * And it remains the law that testimony regarding the content of conversations between informers and suspects overheard by government agents by the use of electronic devices under circumstances such as those in this case are admissible into evidence. See Osborn v. United States, 1966, 385 U.S. 323 , 87 S.Ct. 429 , 17 L.Ed.2d 394 ; Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427 , 83 S.Ct. 1381 , 10 L.Ed.2d 462 ; On Lee v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 747 , 72 S.Ct. 967 , 96 L.Ed. 1270 ; Long v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 387 F.2d 377 [Nov. 10, 1967]; Beatty v. United States, 5 Cir., 377 F.2d 181 , rev'd. on other grounds, 1967, 389 U.S. 45 , 88 S.Ct. 234 , 19 L.Ed.2d 48 ; Hurst v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 370 F.2d 161 . "These cases are undisturbed by the Supreme Court's very recent decision in Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 , where the Court held it to be an unreasonable search and seizure for federal agents by means of an external (non-wiretapping) electronic device to listen to and record the defendant's end of telephone conversations made from a public booth. Indeed, the Court specifically expressed continued approval of the principle that `what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210 , 87 S.Ct. 424, 427 , 17 L.Ed.2d 312 .' Katz v. United States, supra, 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 51”
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.