Smith v. Paschal’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1979
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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 Cooper v. Reynolds · Guinn v. United States · Crawford v. McDonald · Myers v. Anderson · Clayton v. Hurt
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The most usual statement of what makes a judgment void (distinguishable from voidable) is lack of jurisdiction over the parties, or some of them, or want of jurisdiction over the subject-matter. But, whether really included in the first-named condition or not, there is a third (or supplemental) state of like effect, and that is absence of authority to award the particular relief which the judgment undertakes to grant. * * * We have the case of a nullity * * * and not the case of something void for de hors matter or mere irregularity and, hence, within the protecting doctrine of ‘collateral attack.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State
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.