United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
515 F.2d 1028 · 1975
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably 94 Ill. 2d 378 - People v. Free (1983), United States v. Morgan (1984)
23 federal appellate · 7 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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 751
Relies on United States v. Basurto · United States v. Looney · United States v. Sellers · Hutto 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant argues that his removal from the Southern District of Indiana to be tried in the Northern District of Mississippi violated his “right” to obtain a transfer under Fed.R.Crim.P. 20. Appellant requested a transfer of the earlier pending Dyer Act charges from Louisiana and the Mississippi escape charge. The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, however, did not agree, informing Smith’s counsel by letter that “the attempt to obtain disposition of these two cases in this District is impractical inasmuch as several other charges against this defendant are being considered in Mississippi” (i. e. the instant charges as well as possible firearms violations). Rule 20 specifically requires the consent of the United States Attorney for each district involved, and we find nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about the refusal in this case. A defendant has no unilateral right to a transfer. See United States v. Zink, 436 F.2d 1248 , 1250 (8th Cir. 1971). See also Hutto v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 489 , 492-93 (D.S.C.1970). 515 F.2d at p. 1030.”
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.