State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 1983 · most notably State v. Zeilinger (1938), State v. Woolworth (1938)
26 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 City of Sedan v. Church · State v. Fleeman · State v. Brooks · State v. Peterson · State v. Pugh
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A new trial should not be allowed on the ground of newly discovered evidence, when such evidence appears to be competent only for the purpose of impeaching the witnesses of the opposite party, or when it is merely cumulative.” (State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186 , syl. ¶ 3, 217 Pac. 307 .) “The rule is followed that new trials will not be granted for newly discovered evidence merely of an impeaching character.” (State v. Wallace, 110 Kan. 665 , syl. ¶¶ 1, 204 Pac. 533 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harned““It would be hypercritical to hold this instruction erroneous merely because a disconnected portion of a sentence would be erroneous standing by itself.” (p. 611.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wright
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.