United States v. Blich’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.2d 627 · 1930
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1970 · most notably Scher v. United States (1938), Willson v. Superior Court (1956)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Swiss Nat Ins Co v. Miller · Emite v. United States · United States v. Allen
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We then come to discuss that feature of the case which involves the refusal of the officer to give the name of his informant. Counsel have cited no cases upon the exact point, although there is language in the case of United States v. Allen, (D.C.) [ 16 F.2d 320 , and Emite v. United States, (C.C.A.) 15 F.2d 623 , which would indicate that such an element might enter into the consideration of the court in the determination of whether or not a probable cause existed. . . . The only question here is as to whether or not, when the matter is presented to a court for the purpose of seeking a determination of whether, under all the circumstances, there was probable cause, this element of those circumstances may remain undisclosed. It is scarcely an answer to the proposition that an agent testifies that his informant was a reliable person, and that he believed the information so given, unless the court sitting in judgment may have the right to determine whether, under all the circumstances, such information was reliable and the agent was justified in having such belief. A belief must or should rest upon a substantial basis. It is not a question of impugning the motives or doubting the honest belief of the agent in regard to the information which he may have received. It is simply requiring the witness to sustain his motives and his beliefs by all the evidence at his command. It is conceivable that a prohibition agent in the earnestness and eagerness of performing his duty might ado”
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.