Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 940 F.2d 710 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

940 F.2d 710 · 1991

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Rehaif v. United States (2019), United States v. Holmquist (1994)

68 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions

6201991200020102020decided

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. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Simmons v. United States · United States v. Russell · Hampton v. United States · McGautha v. California · Cox v. State of Louisiana

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

  1. “(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is predicated upon fundamental notions of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Whether the prosecution of a defendant violates his due process rights depends not solely upon whether he was incorrectly informed or misled by a government official, but upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the prosecution.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “criminal defendant may be entitled to raise a defense of entrapment by estoppel only when a government official or agent actively assures a defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably relies on that advice and continues or initiates the conduct”
    2 later decisions 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.