United States v. Rubio’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 786 · 1983
Citation profile
140 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 207 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. McConney (1984), United States v. Kessi (1989)
140 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3060 · 18 U.S.C. § 3103A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar 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 207 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce consent has been obtained from one with authority to give it, any expectation of privacy has been lost.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We strongly disagree with any inference that criminal investigation is somehow prohibited when it interferes with such First Amendment interests. When activity protected by the First Amendment becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment come into play.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts upon which the magistrate bases his probable cause determination must appear within the four corners of the warrant affidavit; the warrant cannot be supported by outside information.”
2 later decisions 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.