Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 795 F.2d 841 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

795 F.2d 841 · 1986

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Sanchez-Lopez (1989), United States v. Terry (1990)

69 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 states

49019861990200020102020decided

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. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2255 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Ventresca · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Miller v. California · New York v. Ferber

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

  1. “[s]uch a loophole is inconsistent with congressional intent.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) bestiality; (C) masturbation; (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]f it appears that a defendant ... is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses ... in an indictment ... the court may order an election or separate trials of counts.”
    4 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.