Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. ““As for the right of the appellant to have a hearing upon the question of his sanity at the time of the trial, the whole matter is settled by the decision in Bishop v. United States * * *»”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. United States · Bistram v. United States

2. ““The Petition of June 25, 1956. “Counsel assume that this petition also is one filed pursuant to the provisions of § 2255. It alleges that petitioner is confined at Alcatraz Prison serving the sentence imposed upon him in the court below. He was sentenced on May 14, 1948 to a term of 25 years. Petitioner seeks to have an adjudication that his sentence commenced on May 14, 1948. At the time he was tried and sentenced petitioner was serving a sentence of a California court in a California penitentiary, his sentence being from. 5 years to life. He asserts that the Government claims that his 25 year sentence did not begin to run while he was in the California prison ; but he says that the legal effect of the imposition of the 25 year sentence without designating that it was to commence at a later time, or at the termination of service of the state sentence, was that it would begin when the sentence was imposed, and would run concurrently with the prior sentence notwithstanding that prior sentence was that of another court. He relies upon Zerbst v. Lyman, 5 Cir., 255 F. 609 , Aderhold v. McCarthy, 65 F.2d 452 , White v. Kwiatkowski, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 264 , and also upon the case of Ex parte Lawson, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 544 , 266 S.W. 1101 , in which, he asserts, the state court recognized the same rule with respect to a state sentence upon one already serving a federal sentence. “We are of the opinion that this proceeding under § 2255 is not a proper one to afford the appellant relief. Eve”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 212 F. Supp. 622 - Smith v. Settle

3. ““Per Curiam. “ * * * we rejected the appellant’s appeal from a denial of another petition which was referred to as the petition of June 25,1956. We rejected that appeal on the authority of Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 894, and other cases cited, saying that deeming that petition as having been filed under § 2255 we regarded it as not a proper remedy to afford the appellant the relief which he sought. “Upon this petition for rehearing appellant urges that we should have ordered a hearing in the court below upon this .petition of June 25, 1956, in which appellant sought to have an adjudication that the sentence which was imposed upon him following his conviction should have been treated as one running concurrently with a sentence he was serving in a California penitentiary, and that its commencement should not be deemed to be delayed until after he had been released from the California prison. “Petitioner asserts that we improperly labeled this petition of June 25, 1956 as one filed pursuant to § 2255, and that we should have treated it as one seeking relief under the principle of United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 , 98 L.Ed. 248 , and that the appellant should have the relief sought in that petition because granting it would hasten the date when he would be entitled to consideration for a parole. “It is obvious that if the appellant is successful upon a further hearing in the court below in establishing his claims as stated in his petition of M”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 212 F. Supp. 622 - Smith v. Settle