Buchenburger v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2006
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 United States v. Ventresca · Trimble v. Commonwealth · Berkshire v. Commonwealth · Thompson v. Commonwealth
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Wjhere reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense manner. Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.” United. States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 689 (1965).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Guthrey v. State · Yingst v. State““ ‘On the 5th day of September 1970, at" approximately 5:00 fcBfe/p.m., affiant received information from/observed a confidential informant who has in the past been reliable and has been responsa-ble [sic] for two (2) narcotic arrests in the past year. Informant states that on this date, September 5, 1970 at 4:00 pm, he was at the home of Henry Bucken-berger or Buchenburger (he was unsure of the spelling) at 6015 Bardstown Road and while there he observed Henry Buckenberger or Buchenburger with a large quantity of marihuana. Informant states that Buchenburger or Buckenber-ger is a pusher and sells marihuana by the pound. Informant further states that he was asked by Buchenburger or Buckenberger if he wanted to be a runner for him. Informant states that he was told his part of a $20.00 dollar bag would be $5.00 dollars.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guthrey v. State
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.