United States v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 150 · 1973
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Petzoldt v. Commissioner (1989), United States v. Barnes (1979)
153 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 28 U.S.C. § 1732 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Katz v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Simmons 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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each knew, or had reason to know, that other retailers were involved with the [ ] organization....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declarant for cross-examination deprived the jury of a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the extrajudicial declaration.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Telephone subscribers are fully aware that records will be made of their toll calls. . . . This Court has held that the expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment attaches to the content of the telephone conversation and not to the fact that a conversation took place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.