United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.3d 681 · 1995
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Calbat (2001), United States v. Comer (1996)
15 federal appellate · 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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231D (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund · United States v. Bruchey · Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local No. 9
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a right or interest enforceable against the plan.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hoult v. Hoult · Robbins v. Debuono“[w]here an employee elects to draw on her ERISA plan prior to her retirement, she forfeits the protection provided by the Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“ERISA erects a general bar to the garnishment of pension benefits from plans covered by the Act.... We see no meaningful distinction between a writ of garnishment and the constructive trust remedy imposed in this case. That remedy is therefore prohibited by § 206(d)(1).... Section 206(d) reflects a considered congressional policy choice, a decision to safeguard a stream of income for pensioners (and their dependents, who may be, and perhaps usually are, blameless), even if that decision prevents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them. If exceptions to this policy are to be made, it is for Congress to undertake that task.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.