Charles Smith v. Edwin W. Meese’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1484 · 1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2015
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. Judicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motive and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government’s enforcement policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“1. Plaintiff has suffered actual or threatened injury at the hands of defendant. 2. The injury can be traced to alleged unlawful conduct of defendant, and; 3. The injury will likely be redressed by the requested relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schramek v. Jones“unless it appears beyond doubt that the appellant[s] can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief.”
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.