Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 F.2d 176 - Smith v. United States

Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

157 F.2d 176 · 1946

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
April 1974
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1974 · most notably Cox v. United States (1947), Simmons v. United States (1955)

36 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2101946195019601970decided

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 Screws v. United States · Crowell v. Benson · Estep v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Falbovs 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The provision making the decisions of the local board ‘final’ means to us that Congress chose not to give administrative action under this Act the customary scope of judicial review which obtains under other statutes. It means that the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of the local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant. See Goff v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F.2d 610 , 612.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whether or not the additional evidence was of sufficient weight to require a reopening of the case lay within the discretion of the board and it cannot be said under the circumstances that the discretion was arbitrarily exercised.” Id. at 181 .”
    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.