Miller v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2015
16 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 315 So. 2d 282 - Kavlich v. Kramer · 326 So. 2d 486 - Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. · Howard v. Johnoff Restaurant Company · 17 Wash. 2d 380 - Kalinowski v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n · Connelly v. Scarpa
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a trial judge has provided no reasons for judgment, a reviewing court must divine them. When reasons are provided, a reviewing court must be assured that the thinking process was that of the judge and not an advocate in the lawsuit. It is one thing for victorious counsel to prepare a judgment comprised of the stark, final determinations of a case. It is quite another for' counsel to present as the inner thoughts of a judge what amounts to a well-written brief. In the present case, the reasons for judgment are counsel’s, not the judge’s. Counsel, in brief, repeatedly cites his own written reasons, a highly self-serving act. Contrary to our general practice, we cannot place any real value on the written reasons presented.”
3 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.