United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 860 · 1994
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Solis (2002), United States v. Dean (1995)
48 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Granito v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Wright v. Wright
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity; and (ii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that activity.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[B]y definition, competitors are not engaged in a jointly undertaken activity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“... In the case of criminal activity undertaken in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy, the conduct for which the defendant “would be otherwise accountable’ also includes conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Because a count may be broadly worded and include the conduct of many participants over a substantial period of time, the scope of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity, and hence relevant conduct, is not necessarily the same for every participant. Where it is established that the conduct was neither within the scope of the defendant’s agreement, nor was reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity the defendant agreed to jointly undertake, such conduct is not included in establishing the defendant’s offense level under this guideline. 11”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.