Smith v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Clark v. Elza (1979), Harris v. Harris (1987)
67 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 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co. · Eastgate Associates v. Apper · Lohss and Sprenkle v. State · Jolley v. State · Warren v. State
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court. The right of appeal exists from a final judgment entered by a court in the exercise of original, special, limited, statutory jurisdiction, unless in a particular case the right of appeal is expressly denied by law. In a criminal case, the defendant may appeal even though imposition or execution of sentence has been suspended.” 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kupfer v. State · Estep v. Estep“The basis of appellate review in this State in both civil and criminal cases is delineated by statute”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Green · Cardinell v. State“Ultimately ... it is for this Court to decide which judgments or orders are final and thus appealable under § 12-301. We recently stated that in order for this Court to consider an appeal the “judgment must be so final as to determine and conclude rights involved, or deny the appellant means of further prosecuting or defending his rights and interests in the subject matter of the proceeding.” Applying this definition to the record in the instant case, it becomes clear that the circuit court never entered any “final judgment.” The circuit court neither determined nor concluded the rights involved nor denied Smith means of further prosecuting or defending his rights and interests .... In fact, the circuit court indicated unequivocally that it was not determining any of the parties’ rights. Thus, there is no matter before us which is a final judgment so as to be the proper subject of an appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.