542 F. Supp. 345 - United States v. Dorfman’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Williams (1984), United States v. Pritchard (1984)
29 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]llegations that ... an informant whose story was recited by an affiant was lying, are insufficient to require a Franks hearing, since the falsity or recklessness alleged is not that of the affiant, but that of the third party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is not enough for the defendants to identify particular calls which they contend should not have been intercepted; they must establish a pattern of interception of innocent conversations which developed over the period of the wiretap.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.” Id. at 171 [ 98 S.Ct. at 2684 ],”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.