Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 1025 · 1978
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably Harris v. Day (1981), Hopper v. United States Parole Commission (1983)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 4201 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Morrissey v. Brewer · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Patterson v. United States · Moody v. Daggett
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.
“... If a legal remedy is necessary in the absence of good faith effort on the part of the Commission, the remedy available to the prisoner or the parolee is to compel the decision, not release from custody. 122 Cong.Rec. S 2572, 2573 (daily ed. March 2, 1976) (remarks of Sen. Bur-dick). ... If the Commission fails to act in accordance with these deadlines, the ... parolee would not be automatically released ... but he could compel the Commission to make their decision promptly____ If for some reason they were unable to meet a time deadline, the ... parolee could solicit the assistance of the court under ... section 28 U.S.C. 1361.... 122 Cong.Rec. H 1499, 1500 (daily ed. March 3, 1976) (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeir).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the Commission fails to act in accordance with these deadlines, the prisoner or parolee would not automatically be released from confinement, but he could compel the Commission to make their decision promptly. ... [I]f for some reason [the Commission is] unable to meet a time deadline, the prisoner or parolee could solicit the assistance of the court under existing section 28 U.S.C. 1361, which is an action in mandamus to compel an employee of the United States to perform his duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any delay requires a two-step inquiry to determine if [petitioner] is entitled to relief. First, the delay, considering all of the circumstances, must be unreasonable. Second, the delay must be prejudicial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Judd v. Baer
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.