United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.2d 657 · 1962
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 9 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably Duncan v. State (1965), United States v. Mapp (1973)
70 federal appellate · 9 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 26 U.S.C. § 7607
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Draper v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Agnello 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When a law enforcement officer knocks at the door, identifies himself, and asks to be allowed to search the premises, the acquiescence thus obtained is generally not considered to be voluntary consent. . . ."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]n accused’s voluntary consent must be proven by clear and positive evidence. A consent is not a voluntary one if it is the product of duress or coercion, actual or implicit. Moreover, to be voluntary, a consent must have been unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given.” United States v. Smith, 308 F.2d 657, 663 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 906 , 83 S.Ct. 717 , 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The * * * agents, of the Bureau of Nareoties of the Department of the Treasury * * *, may— “(2) make arrests without warrant for violations of any law of the United States relating to narcotic drugs * * * or marihuana * * * where the violation is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or where such person has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such violation.””
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.