State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State v. Young (1985), State v. Bondurant (1983)
14 federal appellate · 117 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 Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Houltin v. United States · Hankerson v. North Carolina · State v. Powell · State v. Johnson
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the felonious, non-consensual taking of money or personal property from the person or presence of another by means of violence or fear.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams · State v. Moose“First, we do not believe that Judge Fountain's reference to the complete absence of certain evidence constituted an impermissible opinion upon a controverted fact. Rather, the contested statement was merely a legal recognition, correctly made upon the record, that the State's evidence had not disclosed the presence of just cause or adequate provocation to excuse the killing and that the defendant had not fulfilled his burden of going forward with or producing any such evidence either ... Secondly, there is no indication that Judge Fountain's statement wrongfully or absolutely withdrew from the jury's consideration any circumstances which might have tended to negate premeditation, deliberation or malice in the charged killing, .... Simply put, there is no reason to believe that the jury was misled or confused by the trial court's remark; thus, we can perceive no ascertainable prejudice to defendant in any event.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Marlow
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.