Ex parte Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1959
9 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To the mind of the tribunal passing upon the evidence the guilt of the applicant of a capital offense may be evident — that is, clear, strong, not admitting of a reasonable doubt — and yet there may be evidence in conflict with such inculpatory evidence. It is not all conflicting exculpatory evidence that will have the effect to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and destroy or impair the force of ‘evident proof’ made by inculpatory evidence. It is for the judge, or court who hears the testimony to consider the evidence as a whole, and if by the entire evidence a reasonable doubt of the applicant’s guilt of a capital offense is not generated the proof is evident and bail should be- denied.” (Ex parte Tom Smith, Jr., 23 Tex. App. 127, 5 S. W. 102 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Thomas · In Re Thomas““With regard to the second rule, it is not, as we can perceive, objectionable. It is, as we understand it, in harmony with'the constitutional requirement that bail shall be granted unless the proof is evident. It is, in effect, the same rule stated as a correct one in the Bridewell Case, supra, but in different language.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Thomas““It is a safe rule, where malicious homicide is charged, to refuse bail in all cases where a judge would sustain a capital conviction if pronounced by a jury on such evidence of guilt as was exhibited to him on the hearing of the application to admit to bail.” (Com. v. Keeper of Prison, 2 Ashm. [Pa.] 227).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Thomas
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.