United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.3d 600 · 1996
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Moore (1997), United States of America v. Noe Mancillas (1999)
49 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Simpson v. United States · North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas · Midland Central Appraisal District v. Midland Industrial Service Corp. · McLaughlin v. United States · United States v. Shackleford
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if the jury's comprehension of the issues is so misguided that it prejudiced the complaining party.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f defined broadly enough, modus operandi evidence becomes nothing more than the character evidence that Rule 404(b) prohibits.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) be directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) show that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) be sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act; and (4) have a probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
3 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.