Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 F.2d 270 - Smith v. United States

Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

287 F.2d 270 · 1961

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
January 1993
most recently cited

42 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently January 1993 · most notably Rivera v. United States (1963), Russell v. United States (1962)

42 federal appellate ·

3601961197019801990decided

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. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Prince v. United States · In re Bradley · Audett v. United States · Geise 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Smith, the defendant pleaded guilty to a three-count information arising out of a bank robbery. Each count charged the defendant with violating a different subsection of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113. After the defendant was sentenced, the Supreme Court of the United States, in another case, held that the subdivisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 charged but one offense and that the imposition of more than one sentence was illegal. As a result, the defendant's sentence was corrected. 102”
    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.