Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 500 · 1974
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Miree v. County Georgia Phillips (1977), 90 Wash. 2d 323 - Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. (1978)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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 McAllister v. United States · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · In Re Disbarment of Isserman · United States v. Seckinger · United States v. Page
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... if neither “hold harmless” language or an express disclaimer is required, the negative inference arises that the presence of either is a strong indication that indemnity is intended in spite of or regardless of negligence on the part of the indemnitee.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Contractor shall assume all liability and hold and save the Government, its officers, agents and employees harmless for any and all claims for personal injuries, property damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the transportation, storage and use of explosives under the contract.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is usually, though not exclusively, applicable when a principal contractor entrusts a part of the work to subcontractors, but himself or through a foreman superintends the entire job. In such a situation, the principal contractor is subject to liability if he fails to prevent the subcontractors from doing even the details of the work in a way unreasonably dangerous to others, if he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should know that the subcontractors’ work is being so done, and has the opportunity to prevent it by exercising the power of control which he has retained in himself.”
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.