Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 F.2d 16 - Smith v. United States

Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

283 F.2d 16 · 1960

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
3
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably United States v. Kahn (1973), Dobbins v. Local 212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1968)

29 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

150196019701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 35

Relies on Ewing v. United States · United States v. Tomaiolo · Henderson v. United States · Ewing v. United States · Pearson 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Robert James Smith did willfully impart and convey and cause to be imparted and conveyed, false information, knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt and alleged attempt being made and to be made to willfully place and cause to be placed a destructive substance, to wit: a bomb, in, upon and in proximity to a civil aircraft used, operated and employed in interstate commerce with intent to damage, destroy, disable and wreck such aircraft, a crime prohibited by section 32, Title 18, United States Code, a part of Chapter II, Title 18, United States Code, . . . . ” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.