Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 489 F.2d 983 - United States v. Carmichael

United States v. Carmichael’s Empirical Analysis

489 F.2d 983 · 1973

Citation profile

199
cited by 199 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

104 federal appellate · 14 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 199 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Franks v. Delaware (1978), Hampton v. Hanrahan (1979)

104 federal appellate · 14 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 27 states

151019731980199020002010decided

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 Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Harris

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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We now hold that a defendant is-entitled to a hearing which delves below the surface of a facially sufficient affidavit if he has made an initial showing of either of the following: (1) any misrepresentation by the government agent of a material fact, or (2) an intentional misrepresentation by the government agent, whether or not material. See generally United States v. Dunnings, 425 F.2d 836, 840 (2d Cir. 1969), certiorari denied, 397 U.S. 1002 , 90 S.Ct. 1149 , 25 L.Ed.2d 412 ; United States v. Halsey 257 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1966); Kipperman, ‘Inaccurate Search Warrant Affidavits as a Ground for Suppressing Evidence,’ 84 Harv.L.Rev. 825 (1971).” 489 F.2d at 988 (Footnote omitted —emphasis added.)”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any statements based on the affiant's personal knowledge, including his representations concerning the informer's reliability”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “inheres in his statements against interest.”
    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.