United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.3d 963 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Smith (2001), United States v. Wilson (2002)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Nixon · Branzburg v. Hayes · Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co · United States v. Wilson · Doerr v. Doerr
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a post-verdict suppression order fails to become material to the proceedings until the court decides to grant acquittal” such that § 373 l's 30-day time limit was tolled. Id. at 129 . Although the court discussed the materiality of the suppressed evidence to determine when the 30-day period began to run, it did not evaluate materiality in order to determine its jurisdiction. Indeed, the court dismissed the appeal on the basis of untimeliness, not materiality. Id. at 130 ("The Government did not appeal in time; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the suppression decision.”). 9 . There is no abuse of authority in this case. We need devote only a footnote to dismissing Defendants’ contention that Mose Jefferson’s prior convictions are not substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings. If he testifies, Jefferson’s prior convictions are "substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]istrict courts must make, on a case-by-case basis, a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony “by determining whether the reporter is being harassed in order to disrupt his relationship with confidential news sources, whether the grand jury’s investigation is being conducted in good faith, whether the information sought bears more than a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, and whether a legitimate law enforcement need will be served by forced disclosure of the confidential relationship.””
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.