United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.2d 1113 · 1969
Citation profile
82
cited by 82 later decisions
10
states following
November 1974
most recently cited
59 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chimel v. California · Stovall v. Denno · Harrington v. California · Linkletter v. Walker · United States v. Rabinowitz
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), the Court explained that in determining how far a newly announced constitutional rule of criminal procedure would be made prospective only, attention should be given to ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ All three considerations point to making Chimel prospective in the full sense of Stovall and Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969), namely, ‘only to the petitioner involved in the case in which the new rule is announced and to all future cases in which the proscribed official conduct has not yet occurred.’ Desist v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. at 257 , 89 S.Ct. at 1038 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan). See United States v. Hutto, 393 F.2d 783 , 784 & n. 3 (4 Cir. 1968). The purpose to be served by Chimel is deterrent; law enforcement officers had justifiably relied upon Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947), and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); and the effect of retroactive application of Chimel on the administration of justice would thus be substantial even if this were limited to cases where the judgment had not become final. In contrast there is little”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thornton v. State
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.