Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 ARK 542 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2011

17 state decisions

110199220002010decided

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 Jones v. State · Wilson v. State · Fariss 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A former prosecution is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense under any of the following circumstances: (3) The former prosecution was terminated without the express or implied consent of the defendant after the jury was sworn . . . unless the termination was justified by overruling necessity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2, § 8 of the Arkansas Constitution require that no person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants from: “(1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When the jury is finally sworn to try the case, jeopardy has attached to the accused and when, without the consent of the defendant, expressed or implied, the jury is discharged before the case is completed, then the constitutional right against double jeopardy may be invoked, except in cases of “overruling necessity.””
    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.