Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2005
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 258th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Munoz v. State · Collier v. State · Gibson v. State · Barfield v. State · Weaver 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Smith, the trial has not started yet this morning; but we have talked today about the advisability of stipulating to two prior DWI convictions rather than have the State prove up the DWI convictions and running the risk of other things coming in that would be counter productive to our position. Do you agree with that? [APPELLANT]: Yes, sir. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And by signing this, you’re admitting that they don’t have to prove up these two things; and we don’t get into the issue of your priors at this trial, okay? [APPELLANT]: Okay. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is that your agreement? [APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“I, Rodney Camile Smith, am the identical person named in the indictment in the above styled and numbered cause; and I have read the same and hereby agree and confess that: “On February 28, 1983, in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, in cause No. 685-779, I was convicted of the offense of Driving While Intoxicated; and “On April 24, 1990, in the 258th District Court of Polk County, Texas, in Cause No. 12,255, I was convicted of the offense of Driving While Intoxicated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.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.