Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 So. 2d 205 - Smith v. State

353 So. 2d 205 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
November 1990
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1990

11 state decisions

70197719801990decided

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 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · 278 So. 2d 624 - Bradford v. State · Williams v. State · 294 So. 2d 679 - Barnes 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘[T]his discretion [to exclude witnesses] may be exercised only after the court has made an adequate inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances, and failure of the trial court to inquire into these circumstances constitutes error. . .■ . The inquiry should at least cover whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, whether it was trivial or substantial, the extent of prejudice to the state, and the feasibility of rectifying any prejudice by some means short of excluding the witness. . . . The importance of the omitted witnesses should also ... be taken into consideration.’ ” 229 Kan. at 193 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The prosecutor pointed out the failure of the defense to disclose this witness to the state, and defense counsel candidly admitted that he had inadvertently failed to include Mrs. Smith on the witness list. The state objected to allowing this witness to testify. The defense made no proffer of the witness' testimony, and without further inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the failure to comply with the rule[,] the court sustained the state's objection.”
    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.