United States v. Bedford’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 650 · 1975
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 13 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Maryland v. Garrison (1987), United States v. Rickus (1984)
57 federal appellate · 13 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 17 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Bumper v. North Carolina · Elkins 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in order to lessen the possibility that the facts upon which probable cause was initially based do not become dissipated.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a search warrant directed against an apartment house will usually be held invalid if it fails to describe the particular apartment to be searched with sufficient definiteness to preclude a search of other units located in the building and occupied by innocent persons.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the warrant was issued under state law and directed to state officers; (2) the warrant was predicated on probable violation of state narcotics laws; (3) there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of either the state or federal officers; (4) federal agents did not assist in the obtaining of the warrant; (5) there was no evidence that federal agents instigated or supervised the search [to the contrary, the evidence shows that Agent Guseman did not arrive at the scene until the search was completed]; (6) defendant was initially arrested by local police officers; [again, even before Agent Guseman arrived]; (7) the majority of the evidence was found by local officers; [all of the evidence herein, was found by local officers]; and (8) the products of the search, placed in the custody of local police, formed the basis of a state prosecution.”
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.