Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.2d 144 - Hill v. Philpott

Hill v. Philpott’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.2d 144 · 1971

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1999 · most notably Andresen v. Maryland (1976), Couch v. United States (1973)

32 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

490197119801990decided

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 Katz v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Schmerber v. State of California · Beck v. State of Ohio · Boyd 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Assuming, however, that there is a class of papers so intimately confidential and so much a part of personhood that they ought to enjoy a superlative privacy and be protected from seizure upon an adequately grounded warrant, it does not seem to me that the records in question here have the required character. They appear to have been maintained for business and professional purposes, with the knowledge and assistance of employees, and the manner in which they were allegedly kept- and used, made them, in a sense, instrumentalities of the tax evasion offense claimed.” Hill v. Philpott, supra, 445 F.2d at 150 (dissenting opinion).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Dean Wigmore’s suggestion that there is no compulsion to testify because proof of authenticity must come from others without the help of the accused sounds well as an abstract proposition, but certainly ignores the realities of trial. The jury knows the books and records belong to the defendant and the entries he has made therein speak against him as clearly as liis own voice. * * * ” Hill v. Philpott, 445 F.2d at 149 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In practice the result is the same to one accused of crime, whether he be obliged to supply evidence against himself or whether such evidence be obtained by an illegal search of his premises and seizure of his private papers. In either case he is the unwilling source of the evidence, and the Fifth Amendment forbids that he shall be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.”
    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.