State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably State v. Binette (2000), State v. Walton (2001)
90 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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Cabbage · Liakas v. State · Marable v. State · Commonwealth v. Brady
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.””
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Butler · State v. Vaughan“When a party does not object to the admissibility of evidence, though, the evidence becomes admissible notwithstanding any other Rule of Evidence to the contrary, and the jury may consider that evidence for its “natural probative effects as if it were in law admissible.” State v. Harrington, 627 S.W.2d 345, 348 (Tenn.1981). If a prior inconsistent statement does not fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, for example, it is certainly subject to objection as hearsay and limitation under the Rules of Evidence. Merely being subject to objection, however, does not mean that such evidence cannot be considered for its substantive value when no objection is raised.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Robertson
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.