State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 245 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 250 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Kaufman v. Zoning Commission (1995), State v. Davis (1994)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 245 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · North Carolina v. Pearce · North Carolina v. Alford · Bell v. Wolfish
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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essential nature of a proceeding is not determined by its form or label.... United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 718 , 91 S.Ct. 1041, 1043 , 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971). A proceeding is criminal for double jeopardy purposes, if it imposes a sanction intended as punishment. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 633, 82 [L.Ed.] 917 (1938).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Probation is the product of statute. See General Statutes § 53a-28 et seq. Statutes authorizing probation, while setting parameters for doing so, have been very often construed to give the court broad discretion in imposing conditions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Probation is, first and foremost, a penal alternative to incarcerationits objectives are to foster the offender's reformation and to preserve the public's safety. For that reason, a sentencing court is afforded broad discretion to fashion those conditions of probation it deems necessary to ensure the individual successfully completes his term of probation. . . . When necessary, the sentencing court has discretion to impose conditions that impinge on otherwise inviolable rights. In determining whether a probation condition unduly intrudes on a constitutionally-protected freedom, a reviewing court evaluates the condition in the following context: "The conditions must be reasonably related to the purposes of the [Probation] Act. Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.