United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
331 U.S. 469 · 1947
Citation profile
318 federal appellate · 42 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 625 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois (1978), United States v. Robinson (1960)
318 federal appellate · 42 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Smith (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Ex parte Lange · Walker v. Johnston · Waley v. Johnston
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 625 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be made within 7 days after verdict or finding of guilty”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think that expiration of the time [5 days] within which relief can openly be asked of the judge, terminates the time within which it [a new trial] can properly be granted on the court’s own initiative. If the judge needs time for reflection as to the propriety of a new trial, he is at liberty to take it before denying a timely made motion therefor. 331 U.S. at 475 , 67 S.Ct. at 1333 . 3”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““For yet another reason, we would be reluctant to hold that the court has a continuing power on his own initiative to grant what the defendant has not the right to go into open court and ask. To approve the practice followed in this case would almost certainly subject trial judges to private appeals or application by counsel or friends of one convicted. We think that expiration of the time within which relief can openly be asked of the judge, terminates the time within which it can properly be granted on the court’s own initiative. . . . * * •* * *• “The trial judge is given power by the Rules to entertain motions for new trial within five days after verdict and may extend that time for so long as he thinks necessary for proper consideration of the course of the trial. But extension of that time indefinitely is no insurance of justice. On the contrary, as time passes, the peculiar ability which the trial judge has to pass on the fairness of the trial is dissipated as the incidents and nuances of the trial leave his mind to give way to immediate business. It is in the interest of justice that a decision on the propriety of a trial be reached as soon after it has ended as is possible, and that decision be not deferred until the trial’s story has taken on the uncertainty and dimness of things long past.””
4 later decisions 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.