Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 558 A2D 312 - Smith v. United States

Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
5
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Irick v. United States (1989), Rivas v. United States (2001)

1 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

3501989199020002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Dunaway v. New York

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

  1. “[l]eaving a scene hastily may be inspired by innocent fear, or by a legitimate desire to avoid contact with the police. A citizen has as much prerogative to avoid the police as he does to avoid any other person, and his efforts to do so, without more, may not justify his detention.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he government would have us conclude that when a sufficiently high per centage of people in some neighborhoods may recognize [plainclothes] jump-out squads, an officer can rationally and reasonably conclude that one particular person has made such an identification ... [W]e reject this notion of locational taint whereby an individual's behavior is explained by reference to what others in that area or neighborhood may know....”). It is even less tenable when the burden is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . Officer Melby testified that it is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(1) appellant was engaged in a conversation with two men who less than two minutes before had been the subjects of a radio run for a narcotics transaction; (2) no other persons were in the immediate area; (3) the experienced police officer was aware that narcotic sales are often made by several persons working as a team; (4) the neighborhood was a high narcotics trafficking area; and (5) appellant attempted to leave hurriedly when the officers suddenly appeared on the scene.”
    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.