United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 1084 · 1993
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2015 · most notably United States v. LaBonte (1997), Prou v. United States (1999)
23 federal appellate · 10 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. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on City of El Centro v. United States · United States v. Sanchez-Lopez · United States v. Rivera · United States v. Wallace · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Aberbathy v. Sullivan
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; (2) a stenographic,- mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or (3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or á transcription thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). Beard appealed his initial conviction and sentencing, and we remanded to the district court for consideration of two specific issues: (1) whether a statement allegedly made by witness Lisa Watson to Government Agent David Brown (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“made a prima facie showing that a statement of the witness existed which may have been producible under the Jencks Act.”
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.