Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 F.3d 1046 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

156 F.3d 1046 · 1998

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
4
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta (2005), United States v. Lumpkin (1999)

32 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

3301998200020102020decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Neil v. Biggers · Lewis v. Gober · United States v. Downing · Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp.

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “narrow circumstances [of] cross-racial identification, identification after a long delay, identification [...] under stress, and [...] the feedback factor and unconscious transference”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he government bears the burden of proving the amount of loss when seeking restitution. A restitution order entered without proof of loss is clearly erroneous.”
    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.