Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 565 F.2d 233 - Fambo v. Smith

Fambo v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

565 F.2d 233 · 1977

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably United States v. Wright (1994), Vietchau Nguyen v. United States (1997)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1401977198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “While we agree with Judge Curtin’s conclusion that it was reprehensible for the district attorney not to disclose the substitution of sawdust for dynamite, we cannot see, in view of Fambo’s undisputed possession [of] dynamite a mere two days prior to the “on or about” date specified in the indictment, how any dereliction of duty on the part of the local law enforcement officers could possibly have so prejudiced the petitioner as to render his conviction unconstitutional.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Id. at 235. As to the misconduct of the government in failing to apprise Fambo or his attorney of the substitution of the sawdust, the Second Circuit concluded: 55 While we agree with Judge Curtin's conclusion that it was reprehensible for the district attorney not to disclose the substitution of sawdust for dynamite, we cannot see, in view of Fambo's undisputed possession [of] dynamite a mere two days prior to the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “could not possibly have made any difference in the treatment of the defendant.”
    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.