Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 440 F.2d 521 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

440 F.2d 521 · 1971

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Hill v. Lockhart (1985), United States v. Timmreck (1979)

42 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 16 states

29019711980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brady v. United States · Jackson v. Denno

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

  1. “Every inroad on the concept of finality undermines confidence in the integrity of our procedures; and, by increasing the volume of judicial work, inevitably delays and impairs the orderly administration of justice. The impact is greatest when new grounds for setting aside guilty pleas are approved because the vast majority of criminal convictions result from such pleas. Moreover, the concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant is only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[must be] made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Ineligibility for parole automatically trebles the mandatory period of incarceration which an accused would receive under normal circumstances. It necessarily follows that it would have an effect on the expected length of detention and would have primary significance in an accused’s determination of whether to plead guilty.”
    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.