United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 921 · 1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2010
6 federal appellate · 3 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. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Watts v. United States · Rogers v. United States · General Public Utilities Corporation v. Susquehanna Valley Alliance · Dothard v. Rawlinson
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The term “threat” means an avowed present determination or intent to injure presently or in the future. A statement may constitute a threat even though it is subject to a possible contingency in the maker’s control. The prosecution must establish a “true threat,” which means a serious threat as distinguished from words uttered as mere political argument, idle talk or jest. In determining whetherwords were uttered as a threat the context in which they were spoken must be considered.’ ” 670 F.2d at 923 n.2.”
2 later decisions 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.