Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F.1d 755 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

40 F. 755 · 1889

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
January 1927
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1927

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2018891890190019101920decided

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 Wilson · Mackin v. United States · United States v. DeWalt · United States v. Baugh · United States v. Yates

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

  1. ““A preliminary question raised in the argument was whether the District Attorney may of right, by virtue of his official prerogative, file informations charging citizens with offenses brought officially to his knowledge. This cannot be done, under the rules and practice of this court, except upon previous complaint under oath, after opportunity has been given the accused to appear before the examining officer, and to confront the witnesses testifying in support of the complaint. This requisite makes it necessary that the District Attorney shall have leave from the court to file an information; and, if it is within the discretion of the court whether to grant the leave or not, then the right to file is not a prerogative of the prosecutor’s office, and the court may require him, before granting leave, to bring the accused, by rule or other proceeding, before the court, to show cause, if cause there be, against the filing of the information.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Convicts of this district are sent to penitentiaries outside of Virginia,under the authority of section 5546 of the Revised Statutes, which does not, like section 5541, limit the class of persons sent to those who are sentenced for ‘ longer than one year.’ The practice of the court, when sentencing for as long a term as one year, is to order the confinement to be in a penitentiary. Section 5546, and this practice of the court, clearly bring the case at bar ■within the purview of the Cases of Wilson, [ 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935 ;] Mackin, [ 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777 ,] and De Walt, [ 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111 .]””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““I do not agree with counsel, who resist the filing of tbis information, that the term ‘state prison’ was used by the Supreme Court in the general sense of any jail or lockup of a county or city owned, by the state. Such a construction would lead us to the absurd conclusion 1hat the Supreme Court meant to hold that no offense involving confinement, however brief, in a state or city jail or station house could bo prosecuted by information.””
    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.