United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 214 · 1984
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Cullen v. Margiotta (1987), United States v. Pitre (1992)
38 federal appellate · 1 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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · United States v. Testan
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The well established rule in this and other circuits is that a “defendant may be indicted for the commission of a substantive crime and convicted of aiding and abetting its commission although not named in the indictment as an aider and abettor.” ... An aiding and abetting jury instruction is appropriate where the prosecution makes it known that it intends to proceed on a theory of aiding and abetting and the evidence so warrants_A principal purpose of the first requirement is to avoid unfair- surprise to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“18 U.S.C. § 2 does not define a crime. One indicted as a principal may be convicted on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he aided and abetted. Indeed, in view of the language of the statute, all indictments for substantive offenses must be read as if the alternative provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2 were embodied in the indictment.”
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.