United States v. D'Amico’s Empirical Analysis
408 F.2d 331 · 1969
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Murphy v. Houma Well Service (1969), People v. Osband (1996)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Cooper v. State of California · Mills v. Alabama · United States v. Indiviglio
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . This holding does not comprehend that all official intrusions into an individual’s person require, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, a search warrant in order to be reasonable. Some official in-custody investigative techniques designed to uncover incriminating evidence from a person’s body are such minor intrusions into or upon the ‘integrity of an individual’s person’ ( 384 U.S. at 772 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 ), that they are not, in the absence of a search warrant, unreasonable intrusions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that might conceivably be subject to the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here there was only the slightest intrusion (if indeed there was any intrusion at all): the clipping by the officer of the few strands of hair from appellant’s head was so minor an imposition that appellant suffered no true humiliation or affront to his dignity * * *. [A] search warrant was not required to justify the officer’s act.”
1 later decision 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.