United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 308 · 1978
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Martino (1981)
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Brown v. Ohio
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.
“It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 343 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975), quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 1961 As used in this chapter— (1) “racketeering activity” means (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of Title 18, United States Code: . . . section 1952 (relating to racketeering) ..., or (D) any offense involving ... the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs punishable under any law of the United States; ****** (4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity; (5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity; * * * § 1962 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to .conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity .... (d) it shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
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.