Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 Nev. 781 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2024

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

401990200020102020decided

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 American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Luckett v. Warden, Nevada State Prison · Application of Laiolo · Grondin v. State

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

  1. “4. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 213.1215, the Board may not release on parole a prisoner whose sentence to death or to life without possibility of parole has been commuted to a lesser penalty unless it finds that the prisoner has served at least 20 consecutive years in the state prison, is not under an order to be detained to answer for a crime or violation of parole or probation in another jurisdiction, and that the prisoner does not have a history of: (a) Recent misconduct in the institution, and that the prisoner has been recommended for parole by the Director of the Department of Corrections; (b) Repetitive criminal conduct; (c) Criminal conduct related to the use of alcohol or drugs; (d) Repetitive sexual deviance, violence or aggression; or (e) Failure in parole, probation, work release or similar programs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Finally, we emphasize that informing the jury of the Governor’s power to commute a sentence of life without possibility of parole was merely an accurate statement of a potential sentencing alternative. To describe the sentence as “life imprisonment without possibility of parole” is simply inaccurate when, under state law, the Governor possesses authority to commute that sentence to a lesser sentence that includes the possibility of parole. The Briggs Instruction thus corrects a misconception and supplies the jury with accurate information for its deliberation in selecting an appropriate sentence.”
    1 later decision 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.