364 So. 2d 1 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 90 Md. App. 234 - Conaway v. State (1992), 601 So. 2d 145 - Carnold v. State (1992)
50 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 Glasser v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama · Brown v. Allen · Taylor v. Louisiana · Castaneda v. Partida
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Assertions of counsel in an unverified motion for new trial are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tucker v. State · Geter v. State“"Substantial compliance" with a statute means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. Coe v. Davidson, 43 Cal.App.3d 170 , 117 Cal. Rptr. 630, 633 (1974). It means that a court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted. In re Rudd's Estate, 140 Mont. 170 , 369 P.2d 526, 530 (1962). Substantial compliance with a statute is not shown unless it is made to appear that the purpose of the statute is shown to have been served. Kasner v. Stanmire, 195 Okl. 80 , 155 P.2d 230, 232 (1945). What constitutes substantial compliance with a statute is a matter depending on the facts of each particular case. Trussell v. Fish, 202 Ark. 956 , 154 S.W.2d 587, 590 (1941).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The Constitution does not guarantee a defendant a proportionate number of his racial group on the jury panel or on the jury which tries him; it merely prohibits deliberate exclusion of an identifiable group from the juror selection process. . . . Mere statistical disparity between the number of blacks presumed eligible for jury duty and the number actually included in the jury roll does not of itself establish a primary inference of invidious discrimination.'”
2 later decisions 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.