United States v. Strini’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 593 · 1981
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2010
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Draper v. United States · Trammel 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While we do not condone the action, this was not an attempt to enhance the contents of the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant. Rather, it was a measure used to mask the identity of the informant which was necessary for his safety and for his usefulness in on-going investigations. * * * * * * Furthermore, even if the statement was a “false statement” within the contemplation of Franks, supra, the district court did not err in concluding the evidence should not be suppressed. The Franks rule requires that the perjured information be set aside. Then, the remainder of the information ean be examined to determine whether there is probable cause. If there is probable cause, the search warrant will not be invalid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Fox“a casual rumor circulating in the underworld.”
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.