Smith v. Idaho’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 350 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2024
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Ross v. Moffitt · Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. · Greenwood v. Federal Aviation Administration
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the immediate-custodian and territorial-jurisdiction rules are like personal jurisdiction or venue rules, objections to the filing of petitions based on those grounds can be waived by the Government.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“longstanding rule that personal jurisdiction, in the traditional sense, can be waived and need not be addressed sua sponte "). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that there is specific personal jurisdiction over Teck here. 16 Because there is specific personal jurisdiction over Teck here based on its allegedly tortious act aimed at the state of Washington, the first Palmer benchmark is satisfied, and we can appropriately construe the term "any person”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Wjhen a habeas petitioner has failed to name the proper respondent pursuant to § 2242, we must ask sua sponte whether the respondent who is named has the power to order the petitioner’s release. If not, the court may not grant effective relief, and thus should not hear the case unless the petition is amended to name a respondent who can grant the desired relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.