United States v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 562 · 1996
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 42 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Riccardi (2005), United States v. Chhien (2001)
76 federal appellate · 42 district · 8 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Franks v. Delaware · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Matlock
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] number of integers must be factored into the calculus — e.g., the nature of the information, the nature and characteristics of the supposed criminal activity, the nature and characteristics of the place to be searched, the nature of the items delineated in the warrant — and the likely endurance of the information must be gauged on that basis.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The magistrate issuing the warrant must look to the totality of the circumstances in order to ascertain the existence of probable cause. United States v. Schaefer , 87 F.3d 562 , 565 (1st Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Further,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a judge presiding at a suppression hearing may receive and consider any relevant evidence” and the”
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.