Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 F.3d 561 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

373 F.3d 561 · 2004

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2025
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably 643 F. Supp. 2d 51 - United States v. Sunia (2009), United States v. Perry (2014)

8 federal appellate · 10 district ·

220200420102020decided

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

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 656 · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 29 U.S.C. § 501

Relies on Morissette v. United States · United States v. Bailey · Toussie v. United States · Moore v. United States · United States v. Stockton

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

  1. “at least in those cases where the defendant created a recurring, automatic scheme of embezzlement under section 641 by conversion of funds voluntarily placed in the defendant's possession by the government,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The record indicates that some of [the defendant]'s conduct [allegedly in violation of § 641 ] occurred within the applicable limitations period .... The government would be able to obtain a superseding indictment charging that conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[w]hile embezzlement is sustained by the diversion of a single sum of money at a particular time, in many cases it runs for a long period of time and consists of converting different sums of money on many dates to the use of the thief.”
    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.