United States v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.2d 232 · 1970
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Maryland v. Garrison (1987), Powe v. City of Chicago (1981)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Nathanson v. United States · United States v. Hinton
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For purposes of satisfying the Fourth Amendment, searching two or more apartments in the same building is no different than searching two or more completely separate houses. Probable cause must be shown for searching each house or, in this case, each apartment. If such cause is shown there is no reason for requiring a separate warrant for each resident. A single warrant may cover several different places or residences in a single building. But probable cause must be shown for searching each residence unless it be shown that, although appearing to be a building of several...apartments, the entire building is actually being used as a single unit.” United States v. Hinton, 219 F.2d 324 , 325-326 (7th Cir. 1955); United States v. Higgins, 428 F.2d 232 , 235 (7th Cir. 1970).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t [was] evident that the officers could not determine from the warrant which apartment was to be searched and that they made that determination by searching all apartments until they discovered the one they were looking for”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Lee
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.