Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 N.J. 245 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2013

20 state decisions

80199420002010decided

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 Keeble v. United States · State v. Grunow · State v. Purnell · State v. Sloane · State v. Mancine

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

  1. “In the instant case, however, we are concerned with two separate harms, not two versions of the means through which defendant brought about the same harm—the involuntary transfer of a single form of property. The State charged that defendant stole the victim's money at knifepoint. Defendant claims that he stole only the service of the taxi ride. The fact that defendant argues a different means of involuntary transfer does not permit consolidation of the harm he admits with the harm that the State charges.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A defendant should not be allowed to alter the State's trial strategy by admitting the commission of an unrelated, less serious offense, and then having the court charge the jury, over the State's objection, that it can return a verdict on that offense”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The operative ingredient—deception in the one case, the threat of immediate bodily injury in the other—is sharply different for each offense. In this case, because the element of deception is an essential ingredient of obtaining services without payment but is not required for a robbery conviction, theft of services cannot be said to be a lesser-included offense of robbery.”
    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.