United States v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 578 · 1976
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably 136 Ill. 2d 66 - People v. Foskey (1990), 81 Ill. 2d 159 - People v. Abney (1980)
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 35 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
Relies on Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney · Johnson 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“guided 'by the realities of the situation presented by the record.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"There was strong probable cause to believe this was the getaway car. Bank robbers known to have been armed were at large, posing current dangers to the police and other citizens. An immediate search of the car could well produce the information needed to speedily apprehend the culprits. Delay to obtain a warrant would have impeded a promising police investigation and conceivably provided the added time needed by the bank robbers to avoid capture altogether. Cf. United States v. Ellis, 461 F.2d 962, 966 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 866 , 93 S.Ct. 162 , 34 L.Ed.2d 115 (1972). The case is within the spirit, though not the text, of the `hot pursuit' exception established in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). "We therefore hold that this getaway car case entails exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless search of the car for clues as to identity or location of suspects... . [I]n the case of a car on the street there is both lesser expectation of privacy than in a home ..., and the entry into a car believed on strong probable cause to be the getaway car is justified, even though the suspect is plainly not now inside, in order to get clues that will aid location and apprehension of the suspect."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“based on sworn oral testimony communicated by telephone,”
2 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.