Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 A2D 438 - Smith v. United States

Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

7019711980199020002010decided

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 Bond v. United States · Bowman v. United States · McGloin 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To warrant an instruction it is not sufficient that an accused merely claim a belief of a right to enter. A bona fide belief must have some justification— some reasonable basis. Such was not present here. Appellant’s transgression of the lot in the daytime when construction activity was in progress and workers present hardly created a right, or reasonable belief in such, to trespass on the locked unguarded site at night. Moreover, appellant himself acknowledged that he knew his intrusion was unwarranted when, upon questioning by the prosecutor, he testified that the gate was locked “[t]o keep people from going through there.” It is irrelevant that the stated purpose for the unlawful entry (assuming appellant’s version to be true), i. e., to take a shortcut from the adjacent basketball court, may have been intrinsically harmless; the crime was committed when he intentionally trespassed on the property against the will of the party in control without a justifiable reason. [Id. at 439-40; footnote omitted; emphasis in original.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.