Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 964 · 1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Fernandez v. Phillips · Reading Co. v. CJI Industries, Inc. · Weingarden v. United States · Charles Neely v. William Henkel
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[H]abeas corpus is available only to inquire whether the magistrate [judge] had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there [is] any evidence warranting finding that there was a reasonable ground to believe the accused was guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Caro“review the district court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.”
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.