United States v. Flagg’s Empirical Analysis
919 F.2d 499 · 1990
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2012
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Roviaro v. United States · United States v. Reivich · United States v. Parker
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.
“[E]ven if the confidential informant had a criminal record and was cooperating under a plea agreement, these facts are not clearly critical to the finding of probable cause. In United States v. Parker, this court recognized it is not necessary to notify the Magistrate of an informant’s criminal history if the informant’s information is at least partly corroborated. [United States v. Parker, 836 F.2d 1080, 1083 (8 th Cir.1987)] In the instant case, independent police investigation corroborated the information supplied by the confidential informant.... Furthermore, a magistrate generally would not be misled by the alleged omissions of facts in this case because informants frequently have criminal records and often supply information to the government pursuant to plea arrangements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mitchell
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.