Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 723 F.2d 478 - Smith v. Ep Perini

Smith v. Ep Perini’s Empirical Analysis

723 F.2d 478 · 1983

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Causey (1987), Miles v. Jabe (1991)

20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1701983199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “'[a] defendant is denied due process only when the identification evidence is so unreliable that its introduction renders a trial unfair. As long as there is not a substantial likelihood of misidentification, it is the function of the jury to determine the ultimate weight to be given the identification.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The ultimate finding of whether [an] identification was sufficiently reliable so as not to offend appellant's rights under the due process clause is, of course, a question of law, subject to full review by this court.”
    3 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.