United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 564 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2019
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 50 U.S.C. § 1803 (§ 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor · United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. · Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the power to conduct foreign affairs is vested principally in the executive branch.”); U.S. v. Smith, 899 F.2d 564, 569 (6th Cir.1990) (noting the “broad authority of the Executive Branch to exercise its discretion in matters that touch national security and foreign affairs”). 6 . Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 668 , 101 S.Ct. 2972 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 , 72 S.Ct. 863 , 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.