Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 F.2d 121 - Filippelli v. United States

Filippelli v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

6 F.2d 121 · 1925

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2003

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

50192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 McLendon v. United States · Wolf v. States United · Hindman v. States United · Commonwealth v. Morse · United States v. Horton

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We see no defect of form or substance in the first search warrant, or in the affidavit upon which it was based; but, in our opinion, the second search warrant was unauthorized and illegal.... We do not hold or intimate that a second search warrant may not issue in any case after a prior search of the premises, when based on a sale or sales consummated before the first search; but, to authorize a second search, some showing must be made beyond the mere sale of intoxicating liquor antedating the first search. As already stated, a search warrant is authorized for a specific purpose, not as a punishment for crime, and when that purpose has been accomplished the right of search is gone. Courts must presume, in the absence of some showing to the contrary, that officers perform their duties and properly execute the processes placed in their hands....”
    2 later decisions 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.