United States v. Larry C. Smith, Etc., United States of America v. Marshall Carter, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
462 F.2d 456 · 1972
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Ochs (1979), United States v. Carmichael (1973)
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 20 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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States · Jones 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“called on to evaluate such information as well as all other information in the affidavit in order to determine whether the informant gathered his information in a reliable way and from reliable sources.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he affidavit need only establish the probability of criminal activity and secreting of evidence on specific premises, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Harris, the plurality opinion of the Chief Justice distinguished the facts from those in Spinelli on the ground that the warrant in Harris was found valid because the informant’s tip “recount [ed] personal and recent observations by an unidentified informant of criminal activity,” thus showing that the information had been gained in a reliable manner. These facts served to distinguish the tip in Harris from that held insufficient in Spinelli, in which the affidavit failed to explain how the informant came by his information, Spinel-li, supra, 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. 584 . United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. at 579 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 . [United States v. Smith, supra, 462 F.2d at 460 n. 3.]”
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.