Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Johnson v. State (1979), 172 W. Va. 656 - State v. Sheppard (1983)
45 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 Estelle v. Williams · Smith v. Hooey · Fossey v. State · Bewley v. State · Williams v. Estelle
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While it may be reasonable to impose the time limit of Criminal Rule 4 ... when a criminal defendant is within the exclusive control of the State of Indiana, for purposes of certainty and ease of administration of the rule, it becomes irrational to extend its application to a defendant who is incarcerated in another jurisdiction which has an interest in retaining the defendant in its custody, either for trial or to serve a sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘(1) the length of time which transpires between the demand by the accused for a speedy trial, and the initiation of action by the proper authorities in this State to bring him to trial; (2) the procedures followed by the State of Indiana in seeking the release of the accused from the jurisdiction in which he is incarcerated; and (3) the compliance by the officials of the State of Indiana with the pertinent statutory provisions of the law of this state and of the incarcerating jurisdiction.’ Smeltzer [v. State (1970)], supra, 254 Ind. [165] at 169-170, 258 N.E.2d [647] at 650. See also Fossey [v. State, (1970)], supra, 254 Ind. [173] at 180-181, 258 N.E.2d [616] at 620.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The court in Williams, supra, was chiefly concerned with the element of compulsion, noting that under some circumstances a defendant might make the tactical decision to appear in prison garb with the hope of eliciting the jury’s sympathy. Accordingly, the court held that proper objection by defendant is necessary to establish a constitutional violation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. State
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.