State v. Smart’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Patterson (1997), State v. Plath (1984)
2 federal appellate · 42 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 State v. Schifsky · State v. Britt · State v. Neeley · Commonwealth v. Dunlap · State v. Middleton
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The function of voir dire examination, ... is to determine specific and real bias or interest in jurors and not to develop personality profiles. * * * * * * We suggest to trial judges that an examination of jurors by the Court ... prior to their examination by counsel, could afford the basis for proper limitation of the questioning by counsel to relevant matters, if not the elimination of the necessity for further examination in certain areas. The unbridled examination of jurors by counsel serves to not only unnecessarily add to the length and expense of the trial, but also serves to antagonize jurors and lessen public respect for jury duty. The extent to which voir dire examination is being permitted by trial judges causes this Court concern, and therefore, this admonition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barnes · Hyman v. Aiken“In fact, '[t]here is no inherent right to disqualification when a member of the state attorney's office is called as a witness in a case prosecuted by a state attorney in the same office, unless actual prejudice can be shown.' " Id. (quoting 81 Am. Jur. 2d Witnesses § 229 (2004 & Supp. 2011) ). South Carolina law "places upon the moving party the burden of showing actual prejudice from the failure to disqualify.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hawes“While this Court approves zealous representation ... it is important in capital cases to maintain strict focus upon the particular characteristics of the specific crime and the unique attributes of the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burkhart
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.