Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 F.3d 516 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

395 F.3d 516 · 2005

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC (2006), Glynn v. EDO Corp. (2013)

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

530200520102020decided

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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Mendenhall · Brown v. Texas · Illinois v. Rodriguez · Florida v. Jimeno

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

  1. “We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he presence of signs barring unauthorized admittance [to the access road] is sufficient to establish that the access road is not `open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he presence of signs [posted along the roadway] barring public entry establishes that the access road is not open to public use”
    2 later decisions 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.