Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.2d 217 · 1940
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2001
9 federal appellate · 10 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 Nardone v. United States · Reynolds v. States · Bruno v. United States · Wilson v. United States · Fall 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant Smith first insists that the warrant of 'arrest was improperly issued and that the lottery papers obtained from his person and automobile should, therefore, have been excluded as evidence illegally obtained. The objection was not made until the trial was well under way, and we have recently held that, unless there is no opportunity to make the motion in advance of trial, the objection comes too late after the trial is in progress. Bennett v. United States, 70 App. D.C. 76 , 104 F.2d 209 . Here there is no showing that appellant lacked this opportunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it makes no difference whether the release was for cause or favor.”
1 later decision 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.