Charles A. Tabasko, Jr. v. Bernard I. Barton’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 871 · 1972
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2012
12 federal appellate · 5 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 Chapman v. State of California · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Simuel v. United States · First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A warrant shall issue under this rule only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before a judge of a court of récord and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant. The affidavit shall name or describe the person to be searched or particularly describe the place to be searched, name or describe the property to be searched for and seized, state substantially the offense In relation thereto, and state the factual basis for the affiant’s belief that such property is there located. If the judge is satisfied that probable cause for the search exists, he shall issue a warrant identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be searched. The finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay in whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished. Before ruling on a request for a warrant, the judge may require the affiant to appear personally, and may examine under oath the affiant and any witnesses he may produce. Such testimony shall be admissible at a hearing on a motion to suppress if taken down by a court reporter or recording equipment, transcribed and made part of the affidavit. The warrant shall be directed to a law enforcement officer. It shall command the officer to search, within three days, the person or place named for the property specified. The warrant shall be served in the daytime, unless the issuing”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have read and reread the entire transcript of the hearing before the District Judge. We find therein no language from affiant which can be construed as a statement that he gave evidence under oath, except when he swore to the contents of the affidavit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Flanagan v. Rose
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.