United States v. Astroff’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.2d 1369 · 1977
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
March 1979
most recently cited
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. United States · United States v. Chadwick · United States v. Harris · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Babich 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cases tend to confuse the standards for excision in the review process and invalidation of the affidavit. The proper approach and that generally taken, consistent with the holding in Thomas , is to consider the affidavit absent the unintentional misstatement. If the remaining averments do not establish probable cause, the misstatement was “material” and the court must then confront the question of what degree of unintentional material misstatements should invalidate search warrant affidavits. 556 F.2d at 1373 n. 3.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such a statement should play no part in establishing probable cause upon judicial review of a search warrant affidavit. The critical inquiry is not whether a misrepresentation is negligent or intentional, but whether it is material.”
1 later decision 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.