Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 513 F.2d 1280 - Rice v. Wolff

Rice v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis

513 F.2d 1280 · 1975

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
November 1995
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1995 · most notably Illinois v. Gates (1983), Stone v. Powell (1976)

51 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

680197519801990decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Harris , the affidavit at least met one half of the Aguilar test, since it averred that the informant’s tip was derived from personal observation and therefore was based upon reliable information. The significance of the Harris opinion is that it upheld the affidavit even though the trustworthiness of the informant was not shown. But the Harris affidavit contained additional indicia that the informant was reliable: the informant was making an admission against penal interest; the tip was highly detailed, further suggesting personal observation; and the conduct attributed by the informant to the property owner was consistent with the owner’s criminal reputation. Rice v. Wolff, supra at 1289 n. 5. (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Such a procedure would be contrary to the previous teachings of the Supreme Court as to the policies to be furthered by the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment, and in no way would protect innocent citizens from unreasonable searches by police officers who had erred in assessing the existence of probable cause to search the particular premises. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * * It is fundamental constitutional law, of course, that a search warrant may issue only upon a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the item sought is located on the premises for which the search warrant is requested. [Citations] * * *.””
    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.