United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 175 · 1988
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Justice (1989), United States of America v. Sean Hart Neil White Joseph Orlando Lawrence Weil (2001)
18 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Kastigar v. United States · Hill v. United States · McNally v. United States · Dorszynski v. United States · United States v. Grayson
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“within 120 days after receipt by the court of [this] mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A] criminal defendant has no constitutional right to be given a sentence equal in duration to that of his or her co-defendants,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following conduct: (1) the court’s evaluation of the significance and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance, taking into consideration the government’s evaluation of the assistance rendered; (2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant; (3) the nature and extent of the defendant’s assistance; (4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance; (5) the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance.”
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.