United States v. Smart’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.3d 767 · 2005
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably McKenney v. Harrison (2011), United States v. Martin (2005)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Arvizu · Kashif v. United States · Wood v. Strickland · United States v. Cummins
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n mistake cases the question is simply whether the mistake, whether of law or of fact, was an objectively reasonable one.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As [the officer] approached the [defendant’s vehicle] from behind [while driving], the officer observed that it had a rear plate, but he could not determine from his distance what state had issued that plate.... Because the vehicle’s failure to display a front license plate was a possible traffic violation, [the officer] activated his emergency lights and stopped the car for an investigation.... It was only after [the defendant’s] car had stopped and [the officer] approached it on foot that he noticed that there was a Georgia plate on the rear of the car.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The police officer] had an objectively reasonable basis to stop [defendant's] vehicle if he reasonably suspected that [defendant] was operating a vehicle that did not comply with Iowa traffic laws.”
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.