Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 F.2d 807 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

355 F.2d 807 · 1966

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp. (1974), United States v. Acres of Land More or Less in County of Monroe State of R (1979)

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

170196619701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Miller · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · Sharp v. United States · Western Air Lines, Inc. v. California · International Typographical Union v. National Labor Relations Board

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[e]vidence of the price paid for other comparable property must be confined to instances in which the transactions have been completed by an agreement between a seller and a buyer for the sale of the property for a stipulated price.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is * * * a reflection of the state of mind of the public with respect to the property.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “‘It is, at most, a species of indirect evidence of the opinion of the person making such offer as to the value of the land. He may have so slight a knowledge on the subject as to render his opinion of no value, and inadmissible for that reason. He may have wanted the land for some particular purpose disconnected from its value. Pure speculation may have induced it, a willingness to take chances that some new use of the land might, in the end, prove profitable. There is no opportunity to cross-examine the person making the offer, to show these various facts. Again, it is of a nature • entirely too uncertain, shadowy, and speculative to form any solid foundation for determining the value of the land...”
    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.