Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2018
21 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Coppedge v. United States · Draper v. Washington · McKane v. Durston · Welch v. Henry
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, it is the failure of appellant to demonstrate that he has been diligent in his attempt to reconstruct the missing testimony which delivers a crucial blow to his argument that a new trial is required; for, as in Kennedy [v. State, 289 Md. 54 , 421 A.2d 1376 (1980) ], no application was made to the trial judge per Rule 826(c) or 1026(c). No effort whatsoever was made on appeal to supplement the record by motion to the appellate court or to demonstrate the manner, if any, in which the affidavits supplied by the State and the trial court are insufficient to provide appellant with adequate appellate review. The appellant has the responsibility to make a sincere effort to perfect the record. Here he has done nothing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Wilson v. State“‘We do not believe, therefore, that every inadvertent omission in the record would call for reversal or would justify the time and expense incident to a new trial. It would wreak havoc on the administration of justice to require reversal in each and every case in which it is alleged by an appellant that portions of trial testimony have not been preserved verbatim for review. As anyone familiar with appellate review can attest, transcripts are seldom perfect. Mistakes inevitably occur____ Electronic recording or stenographic equipment will occasionally fail____ Understandably, therefore, it has been necessary for courts to proceed on a case-by-case basis.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“preserve a correct and precise account of the evidence and rulings at trial, and to assure the ability of courts and of counsel to perform their duties efficiently and completely[,]”
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.