United States v. Manning’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 992 · 1971
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. Burke (1975), United States v. Rubin (1973)
77 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Draper 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . when an officer knocks on the door of an apartment occupied by an experienced narcotics violator, which is reasonably believed by him to be so, and clearly identifies himself as a Federal agent, there is sufficient compliance with the spirit of the statute even if perhaps not with the strict letter. A knock is at least a request for entry, and a trafficker in narcotics who has been told that this is being made by a Federal agent can have no real doubt that the purpose is arrest, search, or both, or that, if the request is not honored, something more will speedily follow. . . .” 448 F.2d 1000 -1001.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) where the persons within already know of the officers’ authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justified in the belief that persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or (3) where those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers in the belief that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic.”
2 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.