United States v. Peacock’s Empirical Analysis
761 F.2d 1313 · 1985
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Gomez v. United States (1989), Peretz v. United States (1991)
91 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 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. § 1952 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Ventresca · United States v. Raddatz · Braverman 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a magistrate need not determine that the evidence sought is in fact on the premises to be searched ..., or that the evidence is more likely than not to be found where the search takes place.... The magistrate need only conclude that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For probable cause to exist, a magistrate need not determine that the evidence sought is in fact on the premises to be searched, or that the evidence is more likely than not to be found where the search takes place. The magistrate need only conclude that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by the parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.