United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 483 · 1980
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Arango (1990), United States v. Paulino (1988)
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · South Dakota v. Opperman · Alderman v. United States
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy that was violated by the Government's [conduct].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The threshold question must be whether the defendants had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched; only after that analysis is completed and the answer is yes may the defendant challenge the use of the fruits of the search as evidence. Thus, the threshold question of whether the defendant had a legitimate privacy expectation and the subsequent use of the fruits of the contested search as evidence are entirely separate and distinct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hey asserted neither a property nor a possessory interest in the automobile, nor an interest in the property seized”
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.