United States v. Talbert’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.2d 464 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Leisure (1988), United States v. Townsley (1988)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Burks v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Santoni 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be commit-ed, (ii) a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in § 10-406 of this subtitle; ... probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through the interception of communications over the targeted communication device; [and] probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense....”
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.