Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Ala. App. 158 - Smith v. State

30 Ala. App. 158 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
May 1983
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1983

13 state decisions

4019411950196019701980decided

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 30 Ala. App. 12 - Robison v. State · Robison v. State · Marsh v. State · Parker v. State · 28 Ala. App. 516 - Morgan 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[A]n indictment for larceny should describe the property with such certainty as will enable the jury to decide whether what is proven to be stolen is the very same with that upon which the indictment is founded, and show judicially to the court that it was the subject matter of the offense charged, and enable the defendant to plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment relating to the same property.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““As a general rule where a particular kind of property is specifically described in an indictment, it must be proved as laid. However, it is no valid objection that the description of the property alleged to have been stolen is broad enough to include more than the proof shows, provided the proof shows a commission of the offense charged.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.