United States v. Manfredi’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 588 · 1973
Citation profile
121 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Young (1984)
121 federal appellate · 15 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Katz v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Sheppard v. Maxwell
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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . the statute might have been more artfully drawn, but no language has occurred or has been suggested to us that better expresses the congressional purpose. To sustain appellant LaCosa’s position would force us to hold that words cannot be devised to make it an offense to engage in the continuous sale and trafficking in heroin with a number of other people and with substantial sums of money changing hands; we feel that not to be the case and that, as applied to the conduct with which Joseph LaCosa was charged, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), is not unconstitutionally vague.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While we encourage cooperation between federal and state law enforcement agencies, we note that the Government, in allowing a joint investigation to proceed through the use of a state warrant, subjects itself to the risk that state courts may impose on such warrants and the evidence obtained under those warrants a higher standard than would a federal court dealing with interpretation of the federal wiretap statutes.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept. . . shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception. . . .” 18 U.S. Code, § 2518 (5) contains the identical language. The foregoing”
3 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.