Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.2d 590 · 1966
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably United States v. Partin (1977), Weber v. Garza (1978)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Smith v. United States · Barnes v. United States · Cox v. United States · Smith 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The receipt by a trial judge of a presentence investigation report, in a manner not prohibited by Rule 32(c)(1), does not disqualify him from hearing evidence on a reopening of a trial. To suggest otherwise would suggest also that he thereby renders himself incompetent to hear a retrial of the same case, should he be reversed on appeal . . . That would be highly untenable .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t has been held that a trial judge who has obtained background information on a defendant, for legitimate reasons ... does not thereby render himself incompetent to try that defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roman v. State
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.