United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 852 · 1984
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. David (1991), United States v. Angiulo (1988)
41 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is not our province to engage in de novo review of an application; instead, we “test it in a practical and commonsense manner” to determine whether the facts which it sets forth are “minimally adequate” to support the findings made by the issuing judge.’ United States v. Smith, 726 F.2d 852 , 864 (1st Cir.1984), citing and quoting United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1983), and United States v. Scibelli, 549 F.2d 222 (1st Cir.1977).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“establish uniform standards not only on a federal level but in a state or county governing the authorization of interceptions, and to ensure adherence to these standards through centralizing responsibility in top level state and county prosecutors who can be held accountable for departures from preestablished policy____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the preferred practice ... of the district attorney cosigning every application had been followed, there would be no questioning the sufficiency of his authorization.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. O'Hara v. People · People v. O'HARA
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.