Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 F.3d 641 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

62 F.3d 641 · 1995

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
3
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Foster (2007), United States v. Sun (2002)

45 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

6901995200020102020decided

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. § 1621 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Dunnigan · Wright v. Wright · Weissbrodt v. White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona · Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County

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

  1. “must be brought, if at all, within seven days of judgment regardless of when the defendant becomes aware of the facts which suggested to h[im] that h[is] attorney's performance may have been constitutionally inadequate.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In Dunnigan, the district court had stated: The court finds that the defendant was untruthful at trial with respect to material matters in this case.[B]y virtue of her failure to give truthful testimony on material matters that were designed to substantially affect the outcome of the case, the court concludes that the false testimony at trial warrants an upward adjustment by two levels.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]n responding to a jury’s request for clarification on a charge, the district court’s duty is simply to respond to the jury’s apparent source of confusion fairly and accurately without creating prejudice. The particular words chosen, like the decision whether to issue any clarification at all, are left to the sound discretion of the district court.”
    2 later decisions 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.