Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 So. 2d 792 - State v. Smith

118 So. 2d 792 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 658 So. 2d 523 - Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs (1995), Kluck v. State (1967)

31 state decisions

80196019701980199020002010decided

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 Brinson v. Tharin · American Railway Express Co. v. Weatherford · 112 So. 2d 864 - Cameron v. State · Basnet v. City of Jacksonville · Benton 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Failure to observe the essential requirements of law means failure to accord due process of law within the contemplation of the Constitution, or the commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment and render it void.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It seems to be the settled law of this state that the duty of a court to apply to admitted facts a correct principle of law is such a fundamental and essential element of the judicial process that a litigant cannot be said to have had the remedy by due course of law, guaranteed by Section 4 of the Declaration of Rights of our Constitution, if the judge fails or refuses to perform that duty.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"As to those cases where the Constitution affords final appellate jurisdiction in the circuit courts, certiorari may not be used in this court for the purpose of securing a second appeal, nor to produce the merits for review on appeal. The writ may not be used to review and affirm or reverse the judgment of a circuit court made in the exercise of its final appellate jurisdiction, but requires that the judgment be either quashed, or the writ of certiorari dismissed."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.