Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.2d 265 · 1964
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Koolish v. United States (1965), Harold Hanger v. United States of America, Gale Mixen v. United States of America, Loretta Meyer v. United States (1968)
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Opper v. United States · Quercia v. United States · United States v. Cardillo · United States v. Andolschek · United States v. Toner
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The practice in criminal cases of calling someone as a court’s witness, while seldom used and not particularly desirable, is recognized as proper in both state and federal courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No prejudice resulted to Smith by the calling of Dalia, his cross-examination and his admission that he was a co- defendant and that he had entered a plea of guilty and had been sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana. Failure to have called Dalia under the circumstances existing might have furnished the appellant with the inference that his, Dalia’s, testimony would have been against the government. * * * ” 331 F.2d 265 , 275.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The result of one being called as a court’s witness is not too dissimilar from that of having a witness adjudged a hostile or a surprise witness.”
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.