Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 TEXCRIM 230 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2012

22 state decisions

8019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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 52 Tex. Crim. 37 - Mitchell v. State · 108 Tex. Crim. 150 - Chester v. State · 74 Tex. Crim. 645 - Walker v. State · 75 Tex. Crim. 75 - Lamb v. State · 102 Tex. Crim. 256 - Klein 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An arrest of a person carries with it an element of detention, custody or control of the accused. The mere fact that an officer makes the statement to an accused that he is under arrest does not complete the arrest. There must be custody or detention and submission to such arrest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “He was either under arrest or not under arrest; and it is the writer’s opinion that the arrest had not been completed. He had to be taken into custody and detained. While he may have been told that he was under arrest, still when the officer attempted to complete the arrest, appellant refused to submit thereto, and his arrest and detention were not completed. It had to again take place, all the proceedings consuming about five minutes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “He [defendant] was then approached by an officer who grabbed him from behind, disarmed him and told him to come and go to jail, at which time he refused to go, and the difficulty then ensued as the two officers attempted to detain him. He escaped and left the officers who were unable to detain him. Subsequently ... they peacefully took appellant into custody.”
    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.