United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1143 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Irey (2010), United States v. Smith (2006)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Jacobsen · Chapman v. United States · California v. Ciraolo · Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver · Oklahoma v. New Mexico
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to the former argument, defendants cite no direct authority for the proposition that when A sends a package to B, the contents of which are ultimately intended for C that C is entitled to claim a privacy interest in the contents of the package. Nor do we think this argument is tenable on its merits. Even assuming that defendants had some possessory interest in the cocaine, for which they had apparently not yet paid, that interest did not broaden to encompass the mailing envelope and cassette. This situation is analogous to claims that one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trunk of another’s ear, (citation omitted), or in another’s purse, (citation omitted). In all these circumstances the owner of the container controls the use of and access to the area as a depository for the property of others; as the Supreme Court in Rakas , the right to exclude others affords a significant indicator of whether one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in an area.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Eleventh Circuit: United States v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1143 , 1146 n. 2 (11th Cir.1994) (“We express no opinion as to whether the drug quantity determination at sentencing is to be governed by the recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines ... or by the rule set down by the Supreme Court in Chapman.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the parcel and therefore does not have standing to challenge its search and detention.”
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.