Smith v. Nixon’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.2d 1183 · 1979
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985), Hobson v. Wilson (1984)
20 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Branzburg v. Hayes · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Jenkins v. McKeithen
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[r]ead into every federal statute of limitations, including the adoption of an analogous local statute of limitations ... the equitable doctrine that in case of defendant’s fraud or deliberate concealment of material facts relating to his wrongdoing, time does not begin to run until plaintiff discovers, or by reasonable diligence could have discovered, the basis of the lawsuit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Chesapeake and . Potomac Telephone Company, argues persuasively that it played no part in selecting any wiretap suspects, or in determining the length of time the surveillance should remain. It overheard none of plaintiffs’ conversations and was not informed of the nature or outcome of the investigation. As in the past, C & P .acted in reliance upon a request from the highest Executive officials and with assurances that the wiretap involved national security matters. Under these circumstances, C & P’s limited technical role in the surveillance as well as its reasonable expectation of legality cannot give rise to liability for any statutory or constitutional violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The District Court dismissed the action against C & P, which installed the wiretap, on the ground cited in the District Court’s opinion in Halperin: ‘C & P’s limited technical role in the surveillance as well 'as its reasonable expectation of legality cannot give rise to liability for any statutory or constitutional violation. * * *.’ We think this was the proper disposition. The telephone company did not initiate the surveillance, and it was assured by the highest Executive officials in this nation that the action was legal.”
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.