United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3156 (§ 201 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Hamling v. United States · Hope v. Pelzer · Screws v. United States · McNally v. United States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court must ask whether the law presents an ordinary person with sufficient notice of or the opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited and proscribed, not whether a particular plaintiff actually received a warning that alerted him or her to the danger of being held to account for the behavior in question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to the second prong of the vagueness test, regarding discriminatory enforcement, a statute will be struck down on this ground if it provides virtually unlimited or unfettered discretion to those who enforce it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Many statutes will have some inherent vagueness,”
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.