United States v. Olt’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 910 · 1974
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States v. Rios (1979), United States v. Rosenbarger (1976)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Ventresca · United States v. Harris · United States v. Hinton · Leonard Jerome Bastida v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, La. State Penitentiary · United States v. Higgins
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For purposes of satisfying the Fourth Amendment, searching two or more apartments in the same building is no different than searching two or more completely separate houses. Probable cause must be shown for searching each house or, in this case, each apartment. If such cause is shown there is no reason for requiring a separate warrant for each resident. A single warrant may cover several different places or residences in a single building. But probable cause must be shown for searching each residence unless it be shown that, although appearing to. be a building of several apartments, the entire building is actually being used as a single unit.” Approved in United States v. Olt, 492 F.2d 910 , 911 (6th Cir. 1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.