United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
915 F.2d 959 · 1990
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Nichols v. Scott (1995), Beazley v. Johnson (2001)
26 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 18 U.S.C. § 1702 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 495 · 18 U.S.C. § 510 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Borden Co. · Johnson v. Righetti
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the defendant in habeas proceedings did not raise his claims before the district court, we do not consider them on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inconsistent with representations made in open court when his guilty plea was accepted, a petitioner must”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kinslow v. Tansy Pnm
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.