Sabbath v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
568 federal appellate · 43 district · 400 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,169 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Payton v. New York (1980), Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
568 federal appellate · 43 district · 400 state decisions — followed in 42 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
reviewedSabbath v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Ker v. State of California · McDonald v. United States · Miller v. United States
Cited together with Miller v. United States · Ker v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Chimel v. California · Jones 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 1,169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An unannounced intrusion into a dwelling--what Sec. 3109 basically proscribes--is no less an unannounced intrusion whether officers break down a door, force open a chain lock on a partially open door, open a locked door by use of a passkey, or, as here, open a closed but unlocked door.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The requirement of prior notice of authority and purpose before forcing entry into a home is deeply rooted in our heritage and should not be given grudging application. The petitioner could not be lawfully arrested in his home by officers breaking in without first giving him notice of their authority and purpose. Because the petitioner did not receive that notice before the officers broke the door to invade his home, the arrest was unlawful, and the evidence seized should have been suppressed.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.