Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 237 N.C. 1 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably State v. McClain (1954), State v. McClain (1954)

81 state decisions

1801953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Calvin R. Morgan v. Riverside Mills Company, C. A. Folk, T. I. Ward · State v. Simpson · State v. . Johnson · State v. Davenport · State v. . Davenport

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

  1. “`A mutual, implied understanding is sufficient, so far as the combination or conspiracy is concerned, to constitute the offense.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Direct proof of the charge is not essential, for such is rarely obtainable. It may be, and generally is, established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, might have little weight, but, taken collectively, they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy. [Citation omitted.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ‘ * * * It is within the discretion of the trial court whether accused should be placed in custody; and the court’s proper exercise of discretion is not error where the jury were unaware that accused had been placed in custody, or were not influenced by that fact.’ 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 977.” H» H» “ ‘In the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, the general rule is that the inherent power of the court to insure itself of the presence of the accused during the trial may, in its discretion, be exercised so as to order a person who has been at liberty on bail, into the custody of the sheriff during trial of the case ... It is not necessary for the court, in exercising its discretionary power to remand during trial, to file any reasons for such action; and if such order is made, it must be assumed, in the absence of a contrary showing, that the court acted in good faith and upon sufficient grounds.’ 6 Am. Jur., Bail and Recognizance, Sec. 101.””
    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.