United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.2d 149 · 1970
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2009 · most notably United States v. Cronic (1984), United States v. Stofsky (1975)
27 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Brady v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Larrison v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Gurleski v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the district court did not have authority to grant a motion for new trial while the case was on appeal does not mean, however, that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion. United States v. Hoffa, D.C.Tenn.1965, 247 F.Supp. 692 . Rule 33 in no wise prevents the district court from denying a motion for new trial while the case is on appeal, see Richardson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 360 F.2d 366 , but merely provides that the district court may not grant the motion until 'the case has been remanded by the appellate courts. When a motion for new trial is made while the cause is on appeal, the motion is in substance one calling for the district court to make a determination of whether it should advise the appellate court that it is disposed to grant the motion for new trial if the appellate court will entertain a suggestion for remand. Knight v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 213 F.2d 699 ; Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir. 1944, 163 F.2d 771 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Recantation is ‘looked upon with the utmost suspicion,’ Harrison v. United States, 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 259, 262 . Ordinarily, ‘ * * * a new trial should be granted when, (a) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false, (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion. * * * ’ [Citations omitted.]” Newman v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 238 F.2d 861 , 862 f. 1.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case.”
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.