Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 166 · 1987
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc. (1990), Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow Industries (1988)
16 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Link v. Wabash Railroad · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n · United States v. Monton · Cherek v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the lawyer (or the client) makes a tactical decision and his noncompliance with the court's directive is not a product of inadvertence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney. ... [A]ny rule which considered the client’s lack of fault would be to visit the sins of client’s counsel on the opposing counsel.”
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.