United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.2d 49 · 1964
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Farrow v. United States (1978), Halliday v. United States (1967)
40 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 2115 · 18 U.S.C. § 500 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Hill v. United States · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Von Moltke v. Gillies · MacHibroda 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An analysis of section 2255, its legislative history and the cases subsequent to Carvell which have interpreted it, convinces us that one of the primary purposes of that section was to make it possible for the judge to rule upon motions in the nature of habeas corpus petitions attacking the validity and regularity of prior proceedings before him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n view of the large number of districts which then had only one judge, Congress [in requiring § 2255 motions to be brought to “the court which imposed the sentence”] obviously considered it desirable that district judges be required to review proceedings over which they had presided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it was to avoid the unseemly practice of having attacks upon the regularity of trials made before another judge through resort to habeas corpus that section 2255 of Title 28 was inserted in the Judicial Code.”
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.