United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.2d 145 · 1964
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2007
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Killian v. United States · Preston v. Texas · Metcalf v. United States · Zamloch v. United States · West 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By necessary implication, Rule 33 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure con fers jurisdiction upon the trial court to hear a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence while the case is on appeal from the judgment of conviction. * * * Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion. With respect to the power to act upon the motion, such rule expressly precludes the granting of such a motion absent remand by the appellate court;”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Noriega“that consideration and decision of this appeal be held in abeyance until the trial judge certifies to this Court whether he will grant the motion for a new trial or deny the same”
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.