Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2012), United States of America v. James Truesdale Ronald Hamilton (2000)
10 federal appellate · 1 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 National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · In re Oliver · Smith v. Barry · Harris v. United States · Emerick v. Fenick Industries, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Thyssen, we noted that there may be a `hypothetical exception' to the general rule that absence can be punished only through Rule 42(b) when the reason for the absence or tardiness is `known to the court.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the contempt consists not in the absence from the courtroom but in the reasons for the attorney's presence elsewhere, and the presence elsewhere was, of course, not in the actual presence of the Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when [the judgment or order] is entered in compliance with Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
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.