Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 907 F.2d 42 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

907 F.2d 42 · 1990

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Taylor (2002), United States v. Sammons (1990)

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

2201990200020102020decided

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 Faretta v. California · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Bounds v. Smith · Younger v. Gilmore · United States v. Chatman

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Rule 12(f) [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] provides that failure to make a pre-trial motion before the motion cut-off date set by the court 'shall constitute waiver' of the motion, unless the court, 'for cause shown ... grant[s] relief from the waiver.' " Id. at 819 (omission and second alteration in the original). The District Court explicitly refused to grant relief in this case, and defendant has waived his right to raise on appeal the issues contained in his untimely motion to suppress. 12 Defendant Key asserts on appeal that the District Court compromised his rights by refusing to allow him extra time to file a motion to suppress the wiretap evidence when the District Court knew that the Key had been having trouble gaining access to a law library. We have held on several occasions that "the state does not have to provide access to a law library to defendants in criminal trials who wish to represent themselves.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “cannot complain about the quality of his own defense by arguing that it amounted to ineffective assistance of 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.